British Columbia Hansard — 2 October 2018, p.m., Issue 152 (41st Parliament, 3rd Session)

20181002pm-Hansard-n152

British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)

Third Session, 41st Parliament OFFICIAL REPORT OF DEBATES (HANSARD) Tuesday, October 2, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Issue No. 152 THE HONOURABLE DARRYL PLECAS, SPEAKER ISSN 1499-2175

PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA (Entered Confederation July 20, 1871) LIEUTENANT-GOVERNOR Her Honour the Honourable Janet Austin, OBC Third Session, 41st Parliament SPEAKER OF THE LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Honourable Darryl Plecas EXECUTIVE COUNCIL Premier and President of the Executive Council ............................................................................................................... Hon. John Horgan Deputy Premier and Minister of Finance ...........................................................................................................................Hon.

Carole James Minister of Advanced Education, Skills and Training..................................................................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Minister of Agriculture.........................................................................................................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Attorney General.................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Minister of Children and Family Development ............................................................................................................ Hon. Katrine Conroy Minister of State for Child Care...................................................................................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Minister of Citizens’ Services.................................................................................................................................................... Hon.

Jinny Sims Minister of Education ............................................................................................................................................................ Hon. Rob Fleming Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources ...............................................................................................Hon. Michelle Mungall Minister of Environment and Climate Change Strategy............................................................................................. Hon.

George Heyman Minister of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development ..............................................Hon. Doug Donaldson Minister of Health .....................................................................................................................................................................Hon. Adrian Dix Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation ......................................................................................................... Hon.

Scott Fraser Minister of Jobs, Trade and Technology............................................................................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Minister of State for Trade...............................................................................................................................................Hon. George Chow Minister of Labour ...................................................................................................................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Minister of Mental Health and Addictions............................................................................................................................ Hon. Judy Darcy Minister of Municipal Affairs and Housing.................................................................................................................. Hon. Selina Robinson Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General ........................................................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Minister of Social Development and Poverty Reduction..............................................................................................Hon. Shane Simpson Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture.....................................................................................................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Minister of Transportation and Infrastructure................................................................................................................ Hon.

Claire Trevena LEGISLATIVE ASSEMBLY Leader of the Official Opposition................................................................................................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Leader of the Third Party ....................................................................................................................................................Dr. Andrew Weaver Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................................

Raj Chouhan Assistant Deputy Speaker................................................................................................................................................................... Linda Reid Deputy Chair, Committee of the Whole ................................................................................................................

Spencer Chandra Herbert Clerk of the Legislative Assembly ....................................................................................................................................................Craig James Deputy Clerk and Clerk of Committees.................................................................................................................................

Kate Ryan-Lloyd Clerk Assistant — Committees and Interparliamentary Relations ..........................................................................................Susan Sourial Sessional Law Clerk...............................................................................................................................................Loredana Catalli-Sonier, QC Sergeant-at-Arms ................................................................................................................................................................................. Gary Lenz

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF MEMBERS Ashton, Dan (BC Liberal) ........................................................................ Penticton Bains, Hon. Harry (NDP)...............................................................Surrey-Newton Barnett, Donna (BC Liberal) ................................................... Cariboo-Chilcotin Beare, Hon. Lisa (NDP).............................................Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows Begg, Garry (NDP) ..................................................................... Surrey-Guildford Bernier, Mike (BC Liberal) .......................................................

Peace River South Bond, Shirley (BC Liberal)......................................... Prince George–Valemount Brar, Jagrup (NDP)..................................................................... Surrey-Fleetwood Cadieux, Stephanie (BC Liberal)....................................................... Surrey South Chandra Herbert, Spencer (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–West End Chen, Hon. Katrina (NDP).....................................................Burnaby-Lougheed Chouhan, Raj (NDP) ............................................................... Burnaby-Edmonds Chow, Hon.

George (NDP)............................................... Vancouver-Fraserview Clovechok, Doug (BC Liberal) ................................ Columbia River–Revelstoke Coleman, Rich (BC Liberal) ...............................................................Langley East Conroy, Hon. Katrine (NDP)......................................................... Kootenay West Darcy, Hon.

Judy (NDP) ............................................................New Westminster Davies, Dan (BC Liberal) ..........................................................Peace River North de Jong, Michael, QC (BC Liberal) ............................................ Abbotsford West Dean, Mitzi (NDP)...............................................................Esquimalt-Metchosin D’Eith, Bob (NDP) ...............................................................Maple Ridge–Mission Dix, Hon. Adrian (NDP)......................................................Vancouver-Kingsway Donaldson, Hon.

Doug (NDP).....................................................................Stikine Eby, Hon. David, QC (NDP)............................................. Vancouver–Point Grey Elmore, Mable (NDP)....................................................... Vancouver-Kensington Farnworth, Hon. Mike (NDP) ...................................................... Port Coquitlam Fleming, Hon. Rob (NDP) .....................................................Victoria–Swan Lake Foster, Eric (BC Liberal)........................................................... Vernon-Monashee Fraser, Hon.

Scott (NDP) ................................................ Mid Island–Pacific Rim Furstenau, Sonia (BC Green Party) ........................................... Cowichan Valley Gibson, Simon (BC Liberal) ................................................. Abbotsford-Mission Glumac, Rick (NDP)........................................................Port Moody–Coquitlam Heyman, Hon. George (NDP) .............................................. Vancouver-Fairview Horgan, Hon. John (NDP) ...............................................

Langford–Juan de Fuca Hunt, Marvin (BC Liberal) .......................................................Surrey-Cloverdale Isaacs, Joan (BC Liberal) .........................................Coquitlam–Burke Mountain James, Hon. Carole (NDP)...................................................Victoria–Beacon Hill Johal, Jas (BC Liberal)...............................................

Richmond-Queensborough Kahlon, Ravi (NDP)..............................................................................Delta North Kang, Anne (NDP)..................................................................Burnaby–Deer Lake Krog, Leonard Eugene (NDP) ..................................................................Nanaimo Kyllo, Greg (BC Liberal)............................................................................ Shuswap Larson, Linda (BC Liberal) .............................................Boundary-Similkameen Lee, Michael (BC Liberal) ......................................................

Vancouver-Langara Leonard, Ronna-Rae (NDP) ....................................................Courtenay-Comox Letnick, Norm (BC Liberal)............................................Kelowna–Lake Country Ma, Bowinn (NDP) ................................................... North Vancouver–Lonsdale Mark, Hon. Melanie (NDP) ..................................... Vancouver–Mount Pleasant Martin, John (BC Liberal)...................................................................... Chilliwack Milobar, Peter (BC Liberal)....................................

Kamloops–North Thompson Morris, Mike (BC Liberal) ..........................................Prince George–Mackenzie Mungall, Hon. Michelle (NDP).................................................... Nelson-Creston Oakes, Coralee (BC Liberal) ...........................................................Cariboo North Olsen, Adam (BC Green Party)........................... Saanich North and the Islands Paton, Ian (BC Liberal)......................................................................... Delta South Plecas, Hon.

Darryl (Ind.) ..........................................................Abbotsford South Polak, Mary (BC Liberal) ............................................................................ Langley Popham, Hon. Lana (NDP)..............................................................Saanich South Ralston, Hon. Bruce (NDP) .......................................................... Surrey-Whalley Redies, Tracy (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Surrey–White Rock Reid, Linda (BC Liberal) ................................................

Richmond South Centre Rice, Jennifer (NDP) ............................................................................ North Coast Robinson, Hon. Selina (NDP) ....................................... Coquitlam-Maillardville Ross, Ellis (BC Liberal)..................................................................................Skeena Routledge, Janet (NDP) .................................................................. Burnaby North Routley, Doug (NDP) ................................................Nanaimo–North Cowichan Rustad, John (BC Liberal) ..............................................................

Nechako Lakes Shypitka, Tom (BC Liberal) .............................................................Kootenay East Simons, Nicholas (NDP) ........................................Powell River–Sunshine Coast Simpson, Hon. Shane (NDP)................................................ Vancouver-Hastings Sims, Hon.

Jinny (NDP) .............................................................Surrey-Panorama Singh, Rachna (NDP) ........................................................Surrey–Green Timbers Stewart, Ben (BC Liberal) ................................................................Kelowna West Stilwell, Michelle (BC Liberal)..............................................Parksville-Qualicum Stone, Todd (BC Liberal)........................................

Kamloops–South Thompson Sturdy, Jordan (BC Liberal).......................................West Vancouver–Sea to Sky Sullivan, Sam (BC Liberal)...............................................Vancouver–False Creek Sultan, Ralph (BC Liberal) ......................................... West Vancouver–Capilano Tegart, Jackie (BC Liberal) ................................................................ Fraser-Nicola Thomson, Steve (BC Liberal)..................................................... Kelowna-Mission Thornthwaite, Jane (BC Liberal) .............................

North Vancouver–Seymour Throness, Laurie (BC Liberal) ..................................................... Chilliwack-Kent Trevena, Hon. Claire (NDP) .............................................................. North Island Wat, Teresa (BC Liberal) ................................................Richmond North Centre Weaver, Dr. Andrew (BC Green Party) ......................... Oak Bay–Gordon Head Wilkinson, Andrew, QC (BC Liberal) .............................. Vancouver-Quilchena Y ap, John (BC Liberal)..........................................................

Richmond-Steveston LIST OF MEMBERS BY RIDING Abbotsford-Mission ..........................................................................Simon Gibson Abbotsford South ..................................................................... Hon. Darryl Plecas Abbotsford West .................................................................... Michael de Jong, QC Boundary-Similkameen.....................................................................

Linda Larson Burnaby–Deer Lake ...............................................................................Anne Kang Burnaby-Edmonds ..............................................................................Raj Chouhan Burnaby-Lougheed................................................................... Hon. Katrina Chen Burnaby North................................................................................

Janet Routledge Cariboo-Chilcotin ............................................................................Donna Barnett Cariboo North .................................................................................. Coralee Oakes Chilliwack.............................................................................................. John Martin Chilliwack-Kent..............................................................................Laurie Throness Columbia River–Revelstoke........................................................

Doug Clovechok Coquitlam–Burke Mountain................................................................. Joan Isaacs Coquitlam-Maillardville..................................................... Hon. Selina Robinson Courtenay-Comox ................................................................. Ronna-Rae Leonard Cowichan Valley ............................................................................

Sonia Furstenau Delta North ...........................................................................................Ravi Kahlon Delta South.................................................................................................Ian Paton Esquimalt-Metchosin.............................................................................Mitzi Dean Fraser-Nicola........................................................................................

Jackie Tegart Kamloops–North Thompson............................................................Peter Milobar Kamloops–South Thompson ................................................................Todd Stone Kelowna–Lake Country....................................................................Norm Letnick Kelowna-Mission.............................................................................

Steve Thomson Kelowna West.........................................................................................Ben Stewart Kootenay East .....................................................................................Tom Shypitka Kootenay West ...................................................................... Hon. Katrine Conroy Langford–Juan de Fuca............................................................. Hon. John Horgan Langley....................................................................................................

Mary Polak Langley East .......................................................................................Rich Coleman Maple Ridge–Mission ............................................................................ Bob D’Eith Maple Ridge–Pitt Meadows ..........................................................Hon. Lisa Beare Mid Island–Pacific Rim .............................................................. Hon. Scott Fraser Nanaimo ...............................................................................

Leonard Eugene Krog Nanaimo–North Cowichan.............................................................. Doug Routley Nechako Lakes ...................................................................................... John Rustad Nelson-Creston.................................................................. Hon. Michelle Mungall New Westminster ......................................................................... Hon. Judy Darcy North Coast..........................................................................................

Jennifer Rice North Island ............................................................................ Hon. Claire Trevena North Vancouver–Lonsdale ................................................................. Bowinn Ma North Vancouver–Seymour ......................................................Jane Thornthwaite Oak Bay–Gordon Head ..........................................................Dr.

Andrew Weaver Parksville-Qualicum .....................................................................Michelle Stilwell Peace River North.................................................................................. Dan Davies Peace River South ............................................................................... Mike Bernier Penticton................................................................................................ Dan Ashton Port Coquitlam .................................................................... Hon.

Mike Farnworth Port Moody–Coquitlam .....................................................................Rick Glumac Powell River–Sunshine Coast ..................................................... Nicholas Simons Prince George–Mackenzie ..................................................................Mike Morris Prince George–Valemount.................................................................

Shirley Bond Richmond North Centre ........................................................................Teresa Wat Richmond-Queensborough .......................................................................Jas Johal Richmond South Centre........................................................................ Linda Reid Richmond-Steveston..................................................................................

John Y ap Saanich North and the Islands............................................................Adam Olsen Saanich South............................................................................Hon. Lana Popham Shuswap .................................................................................................... Greg Kyllo Skeena ......................................................................................................... Ellis Ross Stikine ..................................................................................Hon.

Doug Donaldson Surrey-Cloverdale............................................................................... Marvin Hunt Surrey-Fleetwood ...................................................................................Jagrup Brar Surrey–Green Timbers ......................................................................Rachna Singh Surrey-Guildford ....................................................................................Garry Begg Surrey-Newton.............................................................................Hon.

Harry Bains Surrey-Panorama........................................................................... Hon. Jinny Sims Surrey South............................................................................... Stephanie Cadieux Surrey-Whalley........................................................................ Hon. Bruce Ralston Surrey–White Rock ............................................................................. Tracy Redies Vancouver-Fairview ............................................................ Hon.

George Heyman Vancouver–False Creek....................................................................... Sam Sullivan Vancouver-Fraserview .............................................................Hon. George Chow Vancouver-Hastings .............................................................. Hon. Shane Simpson Vancouver-Kensington ..................................................................... Mable Elmore Vancouver-Kingsway ................................................................... Hon.

Adrian Dix Vancouver-Langara .............................................................................. Michael Lee Vancouver–Mount Pleasant ................................................... Hon. Melanie Mark Vancouver–Point Grey...........................................................Hon.

David Eby, QC Vancouver-Quilchena ......................................................Andrew Wilkinson, QC Vancouver–West End....................................................Spencer Chandra Herbert Vernon-Monashee...................................................................................Eric Foster Victoria–Beacon Hill ................................................................ Hon. Carole James Victoria–Swan Lake .................................................................. Hon. Rob Fleming West Vancouver–Capilano .................................................................

Ralph Sultan West Vancouver–Sea to Sky ..............................................................Jordan Sturdy Party Standings: BC Liberal 42; NDP 41; BC Green Party 3; Independent 1

CONTENTS Tuesday, October 2, 2018 Afternoon Sitting Page Orders of the Day Second Reading of Bills .......................................................................................................................................................... 5389 Bill 38 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act Hon. D. Eby M. Lee Hon. J. Darcy S. Furstenau R. Kahlon N. Simons M. Dean Hon. D. Eby Bill 36 — Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3), 2018 Hon. D. Eby M. Lee Hon. M. Mark A. Olsen S. Cadieux S. Gibson Hon. M. Farnworth S. Sullivan R. Kahlon Hon. R. Fleming Hon. C. James Hon. B. Ralston A. Weaver Hon. L. Popham Hon. K. Conroy N. Simons Hon. J. Darcy Hon. D. Eby

TUESDAY , OCTOBER 2, 2018 The House met at 1:32 p.m. [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Orders of the Day Hon. D. Eby: I call second reading of Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. Second Reading of Bills BILL 38 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY ACT Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time. The Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act will assist government in pursuing recovery of health care costs incurred as a consequence of the ongoing crisis involving the use of opioids in our province.

The costs of this crisis to our health care system are staggering, and costs will continue to increase. The health care costs incurred by the province include those for treatment of problematic use and addiction, the cost of emergency services in response to overdose events, the cost of hospital treatment and various other related costs. These measures of health care costs, of course, do not and cannot account for the immeasurable personal losses, not to mention direct financial costs to individuals, their families and friends and society as a whole that are related to the crisis. The hon.

Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and I are strongly committed to holding the parties who are responsible for this crisis accountable. To that end, we announced on August 29, 2018, that as part of its response to fight the overdose crisis in British Columbia, the govern- ment had commenced a class action lawsuit against the more than 40 different manufacturers and distributors of brand- name and generic opioid products in Canada.

The legal action commenced alleges that the pharmaceut- ical companies responsible for marketing and distributing opioid products caused a spike in addiction rates, including by marketing their products in a way designed to increase demand while knowing of the addictive and harmful nature of them. The legal action seeks the recovery of health care costs incurred as a consequence of those companies’ actions to market, promote and sell opioid products as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications. [L.

Reid in the chair.] In many respects, the action that has been commenced against opioid manufacturers is similar to the action this government took to seek recovery of health care costs from tobacco companies in 1997. That action, too, sought to make large, corporate entities accountable for the devastating effects of their harmful products. [1:35 p.m.] Tobacco-related illnesses and disease costs the health sys- tem and taxpayers many millions of dollars every year.

Gov- ernment took steps then to ensure that tobacco companies would be forced to take responsibility for the health care costs of tobacco-related illnesses. The Tobacco Damages Recovery Act, as it was then titled, and is now, was intro- duced in an effort to give the government and individuals the legal authority to proceed to courts to collect hospital, medical and other prescribed costs resulting from tobacco- related cancer, heart disease and stroke related to tobacco consumption. Subsequent amendments made to the legislation strength- ened government’s ability to seek accountability.

That legis- lation established a statutory tort of a tobacco-related wrong. That act was novel in establishing that statistical or epidemi- ological evidence could be introduced to establish damages. As well, that act established provisions whereby liability could be based on risk contribution. It meant that govern- ment or individuals involved in court actions against tobacco companies did not have to prove that each individu- al manufacturer of a particular brand of product caused the harm, but rather, it was necessary only to provide that cigar- ettes generally cause harm.

The original tobacco legislation was amended and strengthened with provisions to shift the burden of proof in relation to certain aspects of causation by requiring tobacco companies to prove that any breach of duty on their part did not contribute to exposure to tobacco products and resulting tobacco-related disease. That was appropriate when the industry continued to maintain that nicotine is not addictive, that smoking was a matter of free choice and that they did not use deceptive practices to encourage people to smoke. The legislation was tested repeatedly in the courts.

And while it was found to be extraterritorial in its reach, the underlying principles of the act were found to be consti- tutionally sound. Those principles include: the province’s entitlement to make a claim for recovery of health care costs from companies, the province’s right to pursue claims on an aggregate basis, the onus of proof being on the tobacco industry on issues of causation, the apportion- ment of liability among companies on the basis of mar- ket share, and establishing a mechanism for disclosure of health care information while ensuring privacy of indi- vidual insured persons.

As I indicated on August 29, government is introducing this legislation to allow government to proceed in its litiga- tion with opioid manufacturers and wholesalers on a similar basis to that in the tobacco case, which has been governed by rules set out in the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs 5389

Recovery Act, as it is now known. Like the existing Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, this bill will establish the new statutory tort of an opioid-related wrong and establish that government has a direct cause of action to recover the health care costs, the cost of health care benefits, from those who have committed an opioid-related wrong as defined. Recovery is permitted in respect of opioid-related dis- ease, injury or illness.

The bill will permit government to proceed by way of an aggregate action, which does not require government to meet the burden to establish the extent and magnitude of damages suffered by each insured person individually. It will not be necessary to identify particular individuals or to prove the cause of opioid- related disease, injury or illness for any particular indi- vidual. Evidence will not be required to be presented by government on an individual basis.

This bill will allow government to accurately prove its claim, relying on population-based evidence, and enable lit- igation to proceed as efficiently as possible while preserving fairness. Recovery on an aggregate basis will be facilitated by establishing presumptions with respect to use and causa- tion and shifting the burden to the defendants to prove their activities did not increase use and their products did not cause harm. The act will allow statistical information derived from epi- demiological, sociological and other relevant studies to be admissible to establish causation and quantify damages.

If actions for opioid-related wrongs are not commenced on an aggregate basis, the bill provides that manufacturers who committed wrongs may be held liable in proportion to the degree to which they contributed to the risk. The class action that has been commenced will be continued under this act, and this act will serve to extend the procedural rules included within it to the action in progress. M. Lee: I rise today to speak to the legislation at hand, Bill 38, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

This legislation comes on the heels of a lawsuit launched by the provincial government against several dozen opioid manufacturers, as the Attorney General just indicated, and follows several similar lawsuits in the United States. [1:40 p.m.] I understand that this legislation and the lawsuit have taken a great deal of inspiration from the previous lawsuit and related legislation against tobacco companies, with the legislation that was put in place in the early 2000 period. And that tobacco litigation, of course, is still ongoing, regrettably, for close to two decades.

I do further understand that there has been some success on the legal action approach in the United States with Purdue pharmaceuticals pleading guilty and paying over $600 million in penalties. Although, as the Attorney General has said, it may be even years, if not decades, before any semblance of a set- tlement would be achieved from a lawsuit against opioid manufacturers. I think we are all in agreement with the members opposite when I say we support any initiative that saves lives and holds those who might be responsible for creating this devastating epidemic to account for their actions.

The opioid crisis continues to rage in our province and across North America. The focal point of this crisis is centred in my own community and that of the Attorney General’s, being Vancouver. According to the B.C. Coroners Service, the Vancouver Coastal Health Authority has the highest rate of illicit drug overdose deaths in the province, with 36 deaths per 100,000 individuals, which is 20 percent higher than the provincial rate of 30 deaths per 100,000 individuals. The opioid crisis continues to claim lives at roughly four people per day, and the rate of death in 2018 is equal to that of 2017.

In fact, July 2018 was one of the worst months on record with a staggering 130 overdoses on July 27 alone, but was surpassed by March 2018, which was the worst in Brit- ish Columbia’s history. With that said, the peak of our overdose crisis was just a mere six months ago. That is why we need a comprehensive treatment and recovery strategy from this government to relieve the crisis. The nationwide strategy essentially pion- eered here in B.C. involves the four pillars — harm reduc- tion, treatment, enforcement and prevention.

We also need to take heed of what action other jurisdictions have taken and what other models exist. We need to address this crisis now, and we need to ensure that proper treatment and recov- ery options are available. The government’s current strategy is focused on harm reduction, which is a key component, but we need to contin- ue to address the other three pillars if we are to actually alle- viate and effectively mitigate and eliminate this crisis. Hon. J. Darcy: I rise in support of this very important piece of legislation. We are living through the worst public health emergency in this province in decades.

Before this day is done, tragically, three to four more people will likely die. I have in the course of the last 14 months as the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions met with countless families who have lost loved ones in this crisis and met with people working on the front lines of this overdose crisis.

And when I have met with them — all of them — in all corners of this province, I have committed to do everything in my power to save lives in this overdose crisis, to turn the tide on this ter- rible crisis, to connect people with treatment and recovery as soon as possible and, also, to do everything in my power to prevent crises like this from ever happening again.

This legislation is part of that commitment, especially to ensuring that crises like this never happen again by holding those pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors responsible for the part that they have played and the role that they have played in this crisis. The fact is that opioid manufacturers, distributors and wholesalers put profits ahead of people, and the results have been devastating. They misled physicians and the public 5390 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 2, 2018

regarding the risks and dangers of their drugs, and they earned billions as a result. [1:45 p.m.] Here’s just one example. An advertisement that ran just a few years ago that featured a very fit-looking jogger with a tag line — and this is an ad about OxyContin — that said: “One to start and stay with. ” Another ad, again about OxyContin: “When you know acetaminophen will not be enough, take the next step in pain relief. ” These pharmaceutical manufacturers knew the dangers, and they took direct action to refute what they knew to be true, saying: “No, no, these are less addictive than other drugs.

There is no risk of using them. In fact, use more of them. ” If there was any question that they knew the dangers and the risks, we have only to look at settlements in the United States, statements of claim, statements that were agreed to as part of settling lawsuits in the United States. On May 10, 2007, the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Virginia announced that Purdue, one of the principal com- panies involved here, was pleading guilty to misleading mar- keting in the United States. In that one state alone, Purdue paid $600 million in crim- inal and civil settlements.

Three executives pleaded guilty as individuals to the criminal misbranding and were fined $34.5 million. As part of the plea agreement, an agreed state- ment of facts was issued and signed by Purdue executives.

The agreed statement of fact states that: “Purdue supervisors and employees, with the intent to defraud or mislead, mar- keted and promoted OxyContin as less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications. ” So they knowingly continued to market OxyContin and other opioid variations when they knew full well about its addictive qualities.

Since I was appointed Minister of Mental Health and Addictions 14 months ago, my top priority has been to do everything we possibly can as a government to turn the tide on this terrible crisis and to connect people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible. The scope of this crisis is enormous. We are facing the poisoning of the unpredictable toxic drug supply. The drug supply on the streets is becoming more lethal every week, and this crisis is quickly going global. That is why we continue to take bold and innovative action as a government.

We are escal- ating our response every month, every week, every single day, to save lives and to connect people to treatment and recovery as soon as possible. Over the past year, we have moved forward aggressively on many different fronts. We’ve dramatically increased the availability of naloxone, which is now available at over 1,400 locations. Almost 28,000 kits have been used to reverse over- doses. We’ve nearly doubled the number of overdose preven- tion sites and safe consumption sites. There have been 856,000 visits, over 2,000 overdoses reversed and not a single death.

We’ve more than doubled the number of new people who are receiving opioid substitution therapy and increased the number of prescribers. We’ve signed an agreement with the federal government with emergency funding in order to find new and innovative ways to connect people to treatment and recovery services when they need them, where they need them. We’ve launched an overdose emergency response centre to provin- cially coordinate the response as well as community action teams in 20 communities across the province.

We’ve expan- ded drug checking to make sure that fentanyl test strips are available at all overdose prevention sites across the province. We’re working in very close partnership with Indigenous communities and have invested over $20 million over the next three years in partnership with the First Nations Health Authority, and we’ve expanded post-overdose care in First Nations communities as well.

And we’re working very closely with first responders and also with police so that they can, after a person’s life has been saved, act quickly to con- nect people to social supports as well as treatment and recov- ery options. [1:50 p.m.] We’ve also invested in preventive care through support for Foundry centres, one-stop shops right across the province with wraparound services. That is very much about one of the key pillars of our strategy, and that is prevention. We’ve opened five new locations, four more to come.

Those are very much about ensuring that young people who come in the door who are at risk because of addiction issues, because of mental health issues, are able to connect with treatment services, support services and counselling as soon as they walk in the door. Also, innovative resources like St. Paul’s HUB in Vancou- ver, the first of its kind in Canada. It is about not just provid- ing overdose prevention services but also emergency care, short-term stay and immediate referral to counselling and support services and social supports in the community.

As far as another pillar of our approach, which the mem- ber opposite referred to…. When he said that we’re really only pursuing harm reduction, a harm reduction approach, that is simply not the case. We have allocated money, as well, out of our commitment last September of $322 million. There were significant new resources that were allocated to the Minister of Public Safety so that they could work closely with the RCMP and the federal government on strategies to reduce the import of fentanyl into our communities. We have also, as a government, done something the pre- vious government refused to do.

That was to enact pill press legislation to ensure that the only people in the province of British Columbia who can legally use pill presses are those who are authorized legally to produce pharmaceuticals. In addition to what we’re working on as far as prevention — and you’ll hear more about that in the months to come, about child and youth mental health and investing in our schools in order to improve supports for children and youth at an early age before mild and moderate mental health issues turn into more severe issues and into addiction issues Tuesday, October 2, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5391

— we are also taking the first steps now, after 16 years of neg- lect of our system for mental health and addictions in this province. We are taking bold steps forward to improve our system for treatment and recovery as we speak. That means expanding a wide range of treatment and recovery options so that people can find the supports they need where and when they need them.

We have already announced that we will be opening a therapeutic recovery community in the south Island in order to ensure that people who are suffering from long-term addictions are able to live and work and thrive in a community where they’re able to get the kind of support they need to be able to become fully productive members of our society when they leave that therapeutic recovery community. We have purchased Woodwynn Farms in order to support the therapeutic recovery needs of people throughout the south Island. We’ve increased the number of recovery beds, intensive beds, in the Comox Valley.

There is a new youth treatment facility on the way in Chilliwack. We’ve more than doubled the number of people living with opioid addiction who are now receiving opioid substitution therapy, and we’ve significantly increased the number of prescribers who are able to prescribe that form of treatment.

Certainly the folks that gathered in my community of New Westminster to celebrate Recovery Day just a few weeks ago — close to 20,000 people celebrating recovery in the streets — were very, very excited that for the first time in British Columbia, the government of British Columbia was supporting Recovery Day activities, not just in New West- minster but also across the province. When the members of the opposition say that we have a single-minded focus on harm reduction, we do not apolo- gize for one second that we are focused on saving lives. There is no pathway to hope unless people are alive.

But we are absolutely investing also in treatment and recovery and also in prevention as well as in doing everything in our power to interdict the drugs, the fentanyl that is coming into our province. I am pleased to see…. I wasn’t 100 percent clear when the member opposite spoke. He said in very general terms: happy to support any legislation, anything that makes a difference in this. I hope that means that the members of the opposition will be supporting this legislation.

Those are certainly not the indications that we’ve received over the last few weeks. [1:55 p.m.] When the Attorney General and I announced this legisla- tion — the lawsuit and the plan to introduce this legislation — just a few weeks ago, what we heard from the opposition, frankly, was fearmongering. They engaged in fearmongering. They claimed to be concerned that this legislation and the legal action that the Attorney General is taking would limit our response to the overdose crisis, creating fears that resources would be misdirected.

So let me be very, very clear, and let there be no misunderstanding on this score. There will be no resources and no funding taken away from our efforts to combat the overdose crisis in order to pay for this lawsuit — not a single penny. Our commitment remains as strong as it has ever been, and we will continue to commit the resources necessary until we have turned the corner on this terrible crisis.

We do have to wonder, though, why it is that the Leader of the Official Opposition and the spokesperson on mental health and addictions for the official opposition were so strong in their critique of our government taking this legal action and introducing this legislation.

Frankly, British Columbians have certainly asked me — I have no doubt that they’ve asked members of the opposition — why it is we have the opposition party as well as the leader of the oppos- ition siding with opioid producers, pharmaceutical compan- ies, instead of siding with the people and families across Brit- ish Columbia who are suffering, who have suffered and con- tinue to suffer from this crisis.

Again, I’ll be very, very pleased if the opposition has changed its position on this, but the early indications were that the opposition did not believe that we should be doing this and holding pharmaceutical companies accountable. Perhaps it’s the opposition leader’s past with big tobacco that explains why he isn’t standing with us, or has not up until now, when it comes to these opioid manufacturers and distributors and opposing the devastating impact that their marketing practices have had on British Columbia. Last month, as I said, when we held a press conference and announced this action, the B.C.

Liberals attacked the gov- ernment, claiming this lawsuit was overly simplistic and will not save lives and that this action put too much attention on opioid companies. Well, frankly, that’s the point — to put attention on opioid manufacturers and distributors whose actions did play a role in creating this crisis. Perhaps it’s not a surprise when we dig a little deeper and we find out that the opposition leader was part of the legal team representing Philip Morris against the B.C. gov- ernment in 2011. Big tobacco continues to pursue B.C. for health care costs related to false advertising. In the past, the B.C.

Liberals have accepted hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from opioid companies. So we do have to wonder — again, very, very pleased if the offi- cial opposition has changed its tune — whether those earlier statements and statements repeated as recently as yesterday have anything to do with the opposition leader’s record when it comes to defending big tobacco. While the opposition has certainly equivocated at best, certainly, British Columbians are of very, very singular mind when it comes to supporting this legislation.

We have heard from drug policy experts — Alan Cassels, for instance, a pharmaceutical policy researcher, an adjunct professor at UVic and also the communications director of UBC’s therapeutics initiative, a world-renowned organiz- ation that provides independent advice on pharmaceutic- als. He has said: “We’re glad to see British Columbia taking the lead on seeking justice for the opioid crisis. There have been huge costs to our health care system just by the sheer 5392 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 2, 2018

medical activity around saving people from overdoses. The impact has been staggering, and the cost to the health care system as well. ” [2:00 p.m.] We have also heard parents who have lost their children to overdose speaking out in support of the actions our govern- ment is taking. “It’s a long time coming. Certainly these drug companies need to be held accountable. They’ve deluded the public for so long. ” That’s a quote from Rachel Staples, the mother of Elliot Eurchuk, who died tragically last year.

Leslie McBain, the mother of Jordan Miller — who, again, died tragically of overdose — was quoted a few weeks ago as saying: “The awareness factor is invaluable. All Canadians will understand there is fault. Big pharma was criminal, really, in the way they marketed their products. ” Brock Eurchuk, Elliot Eurchuk’s father, says: “Today’s action is a step in the right direction. It’s long overdue, but better late than never. ” I am very proud to stand in support of the legislation introduced today by the Attorney General.

As I’ve said at the outset, our government is escalating action every single day to save lives. We’re also acting to connect people to treatment and recovery, and we are moving as quickly as possible to repair the damage of 16 years of neglect and build a better system for mental health and addictions care. We have given our word as a government that we will do everything in our power to address the damage that opioids have done to people’s lives in British Columbia.

That’s why one of the many important actions that we’re taking — but a very important action that we’re taking — is legal action against more than 40 opioid distributors and manufacturers. These companies made, distributed and sold opioid phar- maceuticals with marketing that misled doctors and patients about their benefits and risks, and they continued to do so long, long after the risks were known. They profited from practices that helped to create this crisis, and it is high time that they were held accountable. It’s time that they were told that they should put people before profits.

We know that this legal action, this legislation, will not bring people back. No amount of money will do that, but enacting this legislation is the right thing to do, and I’m very honoured to stand in support of this legislation. S. Furstenau: I’m grateful for the opportunity to rise and speak to Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This is an important piece of legislation. I’m glad it is before the House for debate.

As provincial leaders, we need to work together to reduce harm and stigma, address the root causes of the crisis, and support people struggling with mental health and addiction. The ability to recovery costs would be an important advancement. It is vital as we move forward, however, that we carry the weight of every life lost and the struggle of every British Columbian still fighting the opioid crisis.

We need to do this for them, and if the province is successful in its legal challenge — and I hope we are — the financial remuneration should go directly to helping the most vulnerable and help- ing those impacted by the opioid crisis.

Following on the important points raised by the member for Vancouver-Langara and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, I’ d like to speak to the report released last week from the Ministry of Public Safety and Solicitor Gener- al’s office, calledIllicit Drug Overdose Deaths in B.C. — find- ings of the coroner’s investigation.This report provides more heartbreaking context to this crisis that we are in. It states: “In recent years, a significant increase in drug-related deaths has affected families and communities across Canada.

In British Columbia, unintentional illicit drug overdose deaths increased from 211 in 2010 to an estimated 1,450 in 2017. ” More than 3,400 people have died of illicit drug overdoses in B.C. since January 1, 2016. The coroner’s report summar- ized the data from illicit drug overdose deaths occurring in British Columbia between 2016 and 2017. It identifies dif- ferences and commonalities among people who have died of illicit drug overdoses, as well as the circumstances surround- ing those deaths.

I’ d like to dedicate my time today to those findings and the people behind them: 81 percent of those who died were male, 65 percent had never been married, and an additional 18 percent were separated or divorced. Most of them were in their 30s or 40s. The majority of people lived and overdosed in private residences. [2:05 p.m.] And 13 percent of people in the study cohort were living in social or supportive or single-room-occupancy housing; 9 percent were homeless; 44 percent were employed at the time of their death. Of those, 55 percent were employed in the trades and the transport industry.

And 79 percent of people who died of illicit drug overdoses had contact with health services in the year preceding their deaths, and over half of those people, 56 percent, had contacts for pain- related issues. More than half of the cohort were reported to have had a clinical diagnosis or anecdotal evidence of a mental health disorder. More than three-quarters of people were reported to have been regular or chronic users of illicit drugs. The most frequently detected substances included: fentanyl, 76 percent of deaths; cocaine, 51 percent; alcohol, 37 percent; and methamphetamine and amphetamines at 33 percent.

Illicit fentanyl was detected in a higher percentage of deaths among 15- to 29-year-olds compared with 30- to 49-year-olds and 50-plus-year-olds. The majority of the people had used their drugs alone. This was true across all health authorities, health service delivery areas and age groups. Even if they lived with others, they were alone at the time of their consumption and death. As Andrea Woo summarized in theGlobe and Mail: “They are mostly single men in their 30s and 40s, what otherwise could have been the prime of their lives. About half lived with mental health issues; about the same with physical pain.

Half of them were employed, many working in the trades, Tuesday, October 2, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5393

and when they overdosed and died, they were at home, alone. Fentanyl was in their systems. ” While we can’t draw causational conclusions from this information, it is clear that our province is unwell. It is clear that young men in B.C., especially those who work in trades, are facing challenges. Can we support them better? Is there something about trades in particular that puts them at risk? Is our economy building healthy communities? Or is it sep- arating people? Is it causing pain, loneliness, making it harder for people to make connections, maintain relation- ships and grow families? This spring the Guardian in England published an

article titled “Many of My Childhood Friends Are Dead, ” by Patrick Blennerhassett. The U.K. publication was writing about Kamloops, B.C. I’ d like to read some of that

article to the House and into the record. “Our fathers were lunchpail baby boomers, ” Blennerhassett writes, “rigid backbones of the postwar world. Nobody asked them about their feelings because they were too busy working.

But by the time my generation sprouted up, there was a new cultural and societal land- scape: less stable employment, more job competition and none of the positive coping mechanisms to face the world. ” We learned “the traditional masculine characteristics of our fath- ers and other men in cities across rural Canada: ill-equipped to handle, let alone display, emotion; unable to properly cope with psy- chological stress; and prone to view any form of vulnerability as weakness.

Stoicism and anger were the primary emotions — great when facing death or danger but crippling in everyday life; excellent on the hockey rink but useless for navigating the rest of the 21st cen- tury. ” Blennerhassett continues in his article: “ A recent study published in the Canadian Journal of Psychiatry titled ‘Critical Issues in Men’s Mental Health’ outlines the ‘male de- pressive syndrome. ’ Diagnosis is tough.

Men won’t report depression nearly as much as women, but they will lash out in anger, abuse drugs and alcohol and take life-threatening risks. “Most Canadian men, the study says, use ‘negative coping mech- anisms’ to deal with their problems, which invariably makes them worse and can lead to substance abuse, depression and ultimately sui- cide. “Jeff Conners, a Kamloops-based counsellor who focuses on men’s mental health, said men come into his office regularly with no road map for how to talk about their struggles.

Job losses are huge triggers for depression and drug and alcohol abuse, and Jeff ’s clients are weighed down with countless mental health issues and abusive de- pendencies. “He said the important thing is to make sure the push to get guys to address their feelings isn’t cast as a war against the other sex. He noted 80 percent of men in Canada want to become fathers and are at risk of passing on negative archetypes of masculinity down to their sons. [2:10 p.m.] “‘I’ve seen this as an allied approach. We need to do this with wo- men, ’ he said. ‘This isn’t men against women.

One of the first things I did when I started focusing on men’s mental health issues is I went to the women’s resource centre, and I said: “Look, I’m not against you. This isn’t ‘men’s rights. ’ I just want healthy men, I want healthy kids, and I want healthy communities. ”’ “Conners’s suggested solution is simple: start more conversations. Force men’s mental health issues out from under the rocks and into the sunlight.

Get guys talking to each other, their spouses, friends and family, anyone. “One night I had beers with friends, ” writes Blennerhassett in his article. “Each of us around the table knew at least a dozen guys we’ d lost over the years — to suicide, drug overdoses, workplace disasters and car accidents….

Compiling the names of the deceased felt like a never-ending search, and we felt like surviving soldiers of some grim, randomized war. ” Circling back to Bill 38, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, I agree with Minister Eby that the lawsuit is an important step to address “corporate corrup- tion and negligence” associated with the opioid crisis. I also agree with the logistical necessity of trying this case as a class action, and I feel hopeful it will build on the success of the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

That said, as we debate the bill through the House, I hope we will also keep the larger picture in mind. That picture includes thousands of wonderful British Columbians already lost and countless others at risk. R. Kahlon: It’s my pleasure to stand up and speak in favour of the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recov- ery Act today. This is one of those topics where, whenever it comes up, I think everyone has a story — whether it’s a constituent, a neighbour or someone they know that’s been affected by this crisis that we’re facing in this province. I just want to share briefly.

A few weeks into me deciding that I was going to get into politics and knocking on doors, I knocked on a door of a house two blocks away from my house. Every time I drive by, I still think of this person. I knocked on the door, and I said to them: “Hi, my name is Ravi Kahlon. ” I told them what I was doing. The guy said: “I’ve been waiting for you. Please come in. ” It was probably the scariest response I’ve ever had from anyone. At first, I was thinking maybe I shouldn’t go in and should talk at the door. But this man was being, I felt, genu- ine.

He invited me in, sat me down at his table and began to tell me about how his son had got into a bad car accident — a motorbike accident, actually — and was struggling with pain and was prescribed medication. From that, he got addicted and started using street drugs. He started to tell me how painful it was, as a parent, to not know where your child is for three, four weeks at a time, having to drive random streets to try to find the child and having them come home and not knowing if they’re going to stay or not.

It was, as a new candidate, not something I was expecting and, quite frankly, was very emotionally difficult to hear. When I heard the Attorney General and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions come forward and say that we’re going to pursue litigation against companies that knowingly marketed themselves….

Knowing that they were putting out a product that had addictive traits, knowing that the people that were taking the drugs were getting addicted to it and still marketing it as if it wasn’t, not disclosing it, speaking and marketing to doctors and getting them to push this drug out to people knowing that it had long-term 5394 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 2, 2018

implications is just wrong. I’m so pleased that we’re taking this action. It’s not the only action. There are, obviously, lots of things happening. We have a new ministry dedicated to mental health and addiction, which, I think, is a fantastic start — $322 million, additional, being spent to take action. There are lots of things happening. What really triggered me was when I heard the Leader of the Opposition say things like overly simplistic, will not save lives and too much attention being paid on opioid compan- ies. It really upset me. [2:15 p.m.] I think the Minister of Mental Health said….

In 2011, the Leader of the Opposition was on legal counsel for a big tobacco company, Philip Morris, against the province. I understand that at that time, he was working for that com- pany. He was being paid by them. But guess what. We’re being paid by the people of British Columbia, so we should be unanimous in this moving forward. I hope that the mem- ber for Vancouver-Langara was the voice of reason and shared with the Leader of the Opposition that this is import- ant, that we all should be part of this moving forward. That one story I heard can be multiplied by thousands.

The Minister of Mental Health and Addictions has been hearing that as she travels throughout this province. Some have said: “Y ou know what? This case will be in court forever. It’ll be in court for weeks, months, years. Who knows how long it will go?” Well, one of the companies that the lawsuit is against has already admitted that they’re wrong. They’ve admitted in other jurisdictions that they’ve made this calcu- lated move and are paying the price for it. So I think that it’s important for us to ensure that we hold them accountable in this jurisdiction.

If it was an individual that was selling drugs or doing things, we would all be a unanimous voice to go after them, and here is a company doing that. I think it’s prudent for us to take action, so I’m grateful to the Attorney General for making this move. It will bring attention to these companies. It will bring attention to what they’re doing. I’m also hop- ing that beyond the court case, when people take these drugs in future, when people have loved ones who are prescribed these, they have that sense of caution, knowing that there are challenges with this and that there are long-term effects to it.

I don’t want to speak too much longer on this, but I did want to have a chance to get up and say a few things. I really want to commend the Minister of Mental Health and Addic- tions on the work she’s doing. I know there was work done before by previous Health Ministers. This is not a partisan issue in that sense. Everybody in this House believes that we need to be doing more, always need to be doing more. But I want to commend her on her work. We had a round table in my community where we brought people in.

Some were people that worked in the social sector, some people had lived experiences themselves with addic- tion, and some came just because they wrote to me and said: “Hey, this is the challenge I have with my child or loved one. ” So we invited them all in. It was scheduled for one hour, and the minister spent two hours plus in that room listening to people, listening to their concerns. This came up over and over again. People said: “When are we going to take action against these companies? Enough is enough. ” I’m grateful that she took that advice. I’m grateful to the Attorney General for taking this step.

I’m actually grateful to hear from the member for Vancouver-Langara that all mem- bers of this House will be supporting this going forward. I think it sends a good message to people of our province that we work for you. We don’t work for donors. We don’t work for anyone else. With that, I’ll leave that there and look forward to hearing more support from the opposition. N. Simons: I appreciate the comments of all the speak- ers who’ve spoken on this topic. I’ll be adding my com- ments on Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act.

When I first knew that we were going to be debating this today, I had no inclination that it wouldn’t receive unan- imous support, that there was any doubt about it. It didn’t even cross my mind. I can’t think of any reason why anyone wouldn’t support a bill that holds a company to account for the damages it has caused to our society. Any suggestion that this wouldn’t be unanimously supported in this House caused me a little bit of consternation.

During the words of the member for Vancouver-Langara, I was somewhat reas- sured that, in fact, they will be supporting this legislation, and I’m presuming that to be the case. [2:20 p.m.] With that in mind, I’m pleased to be able to say that we as a legislative body agree that one of our primary respons- ibilities is to ensure that we protect the public not just against future harm but against the concept that people can get away with a practice that misleads the public.

Here we’re talking about the manufacturers of drugs that have incredibly negative effects on people when their addictive characteristics are present. In British Columbia, thousands of people have died. In every single province across this country, people have died. We talk about the numbers of deaths. We talk about the number of overdoses. Sometimes we don’t talk about the families of those indi- viduals who are suffering, the families of the individuals who suffered, perhaps, from an injury and pain and a drug treat- ment program that may have gone bad.

We don’t talk about the brothers and the sisters of the men and women who’ve suffered or have died of overdose. In my community of Pow- ell River, on the Sunshine Coast, we had the highest per-cap- ita rate of overdose deaths. That, in my community of 12,000, is significant. We, as a legislative body, have a responsibility to deter future prospects of pharmaceutical companies trying to get away with this again. That’s why we have to do this. We have to not only make sure that we raise awareness about the Tuesday, October 2, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5395

costs to our society and calculate the damages that have cost us personally, communally, financially, through the health care system, the emergency health care system, the criminal justice system — unequipped or ill-equipped to deal with people with addiction problems and mental health issues…. We have to think about the bigger picture — that if we don’t hold these companies to account, who will? It’s our responsibility, because it’s within our authority, not just leg- ally but morally.

I’m really pleased that our government is proposing legislation that will make our prospect of succeed- ing against these pharmaceutical companies more successful and more efficient, faster. Ultimately, what this legislation will do is allow the province to present a case based on the aggregate data, the aggregate health care information. We don’t have to go to every single person’s medical file to determine what the cost was in their particular case, their cost was to the justice system or to our social support network or the health care system. We can look at the data in a broad way at the macro level.

It also allows us to do so without unduly interfering with the privacy of those individuals. The aggregate data will pro- tect the privacy of those whose information is held by med- ical services. It will allow us to estimate the culpability of each man- ufacturer based on their market share, based on what they have put into the system. We’re talking about companies, corporations, that knowingly misled or encouraged the pub- lic to use a drug that they knew would be addictive. That would be considered a heinous crime.

The fact that our government is taking steps to remedy this is necessary, and I would only expect that we would have unanimous support for this. I understand that, in opposi- tion, when an announcement is made by government, it’s not always easy to find something to be critical of. When this announcement was made in late August, the criticism was that this wouldn’t solve the problem. [2:25 p.m.] But nobody said it would. Nobody said we were going to solve the problem with this legal action. Nobody said we were going to solve the problem at all.

What we did commit to, and we committed to as legislators here, was to contrib- ute the necessary funds to try to get a grip on the problem. There’s no easy answer. A clean drug supply, obviously, but we’re not there yet. We haven’t figured it out. People are still dying. Fathers and mothers, brothers and sisters, are dying. We need to raise more awareness. We need to reduce the stigma. We need to ensure that people who need prescrip- tions in order to get the supply, get it. We need to increase our treatment programs.

We need to make sure our kids are resilient in school as they grow up, that they have proper nutrition, that they have proper education and proper care. Our government is taking extremely bold steps in those directions. We’re trying to make sure that those who need child care get child care and that they don’t have to spend more on their child care than on their mortgage, already exorbitantly high. We’re investing in communities in ways that will ulti- mately, I hope, result in stronger, more resilient young people as they grow up — happier and good, contributing citizens.

That’s what we all hope for in our community. Harm reduction is part of that. Harm reduction is a neces- sary part of that. It is not condoning of behaviour, as it’s often criticized for being. It is not. We all say that we support people who are in addiction and that it’s their addiction that’s the problem, not them. We need to continue with that philosophy. We need to realize that these people who are suffering all come from different places, with all of their own experiences that lead them to where they are. It’s not for us to judge. It’s healthy for our society to be looking after this issue.

It’s important for us to recognize that as a society, we care about the people who we may not even know. We care about the people because it’s helpful for our community to remain cohesive. So we put the necessary resources towards address- ing a problem that we may not be intimately familiar with, but we do it because we know our society benefits from that.

Here we are as a government — in addition to the preven- tion, in addition to the treatment, in addition to the harm reduction and to the new ways of trying to reduce the harshest impact of this crisis — also saying: “Don’t let this happen again. ” We’re also saying to the companies that think they can come in here and get away with causing irreparable harm to our citizens: “We’ll hold you to account, and we’ll pass laws that will make it easier for us to hold you to account.

Y ou may have more money than us, but we repres- ent the people. ” I think that our government is taking an important step to make sure that our legal foundation is strong, and we can achieve the result we need to achieve with this legislation. M. Dean: Thank you for the opportunity to talk to this legislation, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. This bill supports litigation launched in August 2018 against opioid manufacturers and distributors aimed at recovering health care costs related to their alleged wrong- doing.

We believe that opioid manufacturers and distribut- ors deceptively marketed their products, and as a result, the province has incurred significant costs. As you’ve heard from my colleagues earlier on, there are a whole range of costs associated with that. It’s not just the costs of hospitalization, for example. It’s also the cost of chronic health conditions that people have had arising from their addiction to opioids and overdependency on opioids. [2:30 p.m.] [R. Chouhan in the chair.] So the province is starting legal action against pharma- ceutical companies to recover those health care costs.

It’s 5396 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 2, 2018

alleged that the pharmaceutical companies responsible for manufacturing and distributing opioid products actually caused a spike in addiction rates, including by marketing their products in a way designed to increase demand while knowing of the addictive and harmful nature of them. The province of British Columbia has incurred — and we contin- ue to incur as well — significant health care costs as a result.

On August 29, 2018, the government commenced an action under the Class Proceedings Act against more than 40 manufacturers, framed as a means to recover health care costs incurred as a result of their alleged wrongdoing. To support the litigation, government also announced its intention to introduce tobacco-style legislation for this fall session — this bill — and that’s what we’re going to be dis- cussing now. This bill will allow the province to prove its claim against opioid manufacturers and distributors in a more efficient way.

The bill is modelled closely on the existing Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. The bill establishes the statutory tort of an opioid-related wrong, allowing recovery for opioid-related disease, injury or illness. Instead of bringing forward each individual expense record for British Columbians to quantify overall expenses, the legislation will allow government expenditures to be proven by reference to population, based on evidence, stat- istical data and budget information, to get a big-picture view of the health care costs.

This action is another step in our continued effort to take action in response to the profound impact that the overdose crisis has had on communities across B.C. We have a duty, we have a responsibility, to hold these companies to account in view of the devastating impact which has resulted from their deceptive marketing and distribution practices. I can tell you about a couple who live in my community. They lost their adult daughter to an overdose. She’ d struggled intermittently with drugs, with addiction, with homeless- ness, probably for about 20 years. Her family had supported her.

They’ d been there for her unconditionally, but even they couldn’t provide all the supports that professional services might be able to offer, yet she reached a position of stability. She was engaged in some theatre activities. She was planning forward. She was making plans for her own future. However, she died from a fatal overdose, and as her par- ents say, she should not have had to die alone. As we know, in fact, many overdose victims die alone. The majority are men.

In just July this year, we lost 134 lives to illegal over- doses, and I know everybody here sympathizes with — and our hearts are broken for — families throughout B.C. who are grieving the loss of loved ones. What these numbers show us is that B.C. is still dealing with an unpredictable and toxic illegal drug supply. The overdose crisis continues to be a top priority for our govern- ment, and we are working every day to increase our response and to continue saving lives. Even in 2017, over 186 women in B.C. lost their lives due to unintentional overdose.

They represented one in five who died but one in three of patients seen in emergency depart- ments for overdose. So we still need to continue to improve our understanding, and our response to the patterns and trends that we observe needs to continue to improve. [2:35 p.m.] Every day we are working to build a better, more coordin- ated system of mental health and addictions care to support the needs of all British Columbians. We created the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, and government invested $322 million over three years to support the ministry-led coordinated response to this overdose crisis.

These actions are spearheaded by the new overdose emer- gency response centre and are focused on saving lives, end- ing stigma, building treatment and recovery networks, cre- ating a supportive environment, advancing prevention and improving public safety. In my constituency of Esquimalt-Metchosin, we will actu- ally have a dedicated place for therapeutic recovery for between 50 and 100 men opening very soon. We recognize that those at the greatest risk of overdose are people who are using drugs indoors, in private residences — men aged 30 to 59 in particular.

We are working to knock down the walls of silence and stigma so that people aren’t afraid to talk about drug use and addiction and to encourage those who are silently struggling to feel safe to ask for help. While it might seem that there are clear linkages between this litigation and the current overdose public health emer- gency, today’s action is about those deceptive marketing practices.

We’re saying that the practices used by opioid companies to market their products were deceptive to doc- tors and patients, and this had consequences for people’s health, including the negative impact of increased demand and which could have included overdose. So we’re not saying this is the sole cause of the crisis, but we’re saying it’s implic- ated within it. We’re actually tackling this crisis in lots of different ways. We’re starting legal action against pharmaceutical compan- ies to recover health care costs resulting from this deceptive marketing.

The claim is that opioid manufacturers marketed their products to increase demand without regard for the consequences of taking those drugs. Think about how many vulnerable British Columbians have suffered, have been taken advantage of and had their lives affected for a very long time. For example, 40 percent of perinatal women in B.C. saw a doctor for their mental health, and of those, 12 percent received depression services. What a time of vulnerability. Can you imagine for those Brit- ish Columbian women to actually have been deceived in that situation?

This statement of claim asserts that opioid manufacturers and distributors knowingly and directly undertook decept- ive production, marketing and distribution practices that caused the government of British Columbia to incur signi- ficant health care costs. We’re in the process of quantifying the financial impact, Tuesday, October 2, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5397

including unnecessary health care costs to B.C. health care plans. The total amount has yet to be determined, but the costs will include things like the treatment of problematic use and addiction, the cost of emergency services in response to overdose events, the cost of hospital treatment, and it goes on and on. I know how expensive and pervasive these costs are. I ran a community-based social service agency. We offered the only local substance use treatment services for the whole of the community, and we were overstretched. By the time of 2016-2017, we had long wait-lists.

We had extremely high pressure on our services. There were no other services for adults who needed mental health and addiction supports and services, and the level of service in our community had not increased in all the time that I’ d been running those ser- vices, which was over ten years.

Relatively, those services are really good value, but because of the strain in the community, we were seeing more people in hospital, more people readmitted to hos- pital, more people actually being put on more medica- tions, and all of this has been costing the B.C. government, increasing over time. [2:40 p.m.] We need to make sure that we move to a trauma-informed method of prevention and understanding, supporting people with mental health and addictions issues and needs. We need to move towards more harm reduction and actually helping people get themselves away from substance abuse and substance reliance.

The benefits of the way that we’re approaching this are to allow us to prove our claim in a more efficient manner, sim- ilar to litigation against big tobacco. So rather than bringing forward each individual expense record for British Colum- bians to tally overall expenses, this legislation will allow gov- ernment expenditures to be proven by reference to popula- tion based on evidence and statistical data and get that big- picture view that I mentioned. This, in turn, will help to reduce pressure on the courts and promote expediency and efficiency. That’s what we need.

In all areas of action that we’re taking to try and tackle the opioid crisis, we actually need all of those methods to be done as quickly and efficiently, success- fully and effectively as possible. To finish, Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate that we offer all the support that we can to the families. We are working hard to tackle the opioid crisis in any way that we can. We’ve given our word as government that we will do all we can, and this is just one aspect of that. Deputy Speaker: I recognize the Attorney General to close the debate, second reading. Hon. D.

Eby: Thank you to all my colleagues in the House for sharing their comments in relation to this bill. It’s a very important piece of litigation for the province to ensure accountability for the companies that we allege made these harms so much worse through their misconduct. I appreciate the comments of the member from the oppo- sition in terms of his support, as I understand it, for the bill from the opposition party, and of the member of the Third Party for her comments in relation to the support of the Third Party.

I will note that in terms of the comments of the member of the opposition, I’ d encourage him to get a briefing from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions on the many, many initiatives of government in relation to the opioid overdose crisis to understand a little better what we’re doing. His comments were not, with respect, complete in terms of government’s many initiatives in this regard. With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading of the bill. [2:45 p.m.] [Mr. Speaker in the chair.] Second reading of Bill 38 approved unanimously on a division. [See Votes and Proceedings.] Hon. D.

Eby: I move the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today. [2:50 p.m.] Bill 38, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today. Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s amazing, for a dead language, how enthusiastic people get when it’s used. With that, I call second reading debate on Bill 36, Miscel- laneous Statutes Amendment Act. [R. Chouhan in the chair.] BILL 36 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES AMENDMENT ACT (No. 3), 2018 Hon. D.

Eby: I move that the bill be now read a second time. Bill 36 amends a number of statutes. Amendments to the College and Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the University Act will remove the board membership eligibility restriction respecting employees who have responsibility to negotiate with the board the terms and con- ditions of service of members of the association or adjudic- ate disputes regarding members of the institution.

The repeal of these provisions will allow staff and faculty with negotiating and dispute adjudication roles or their respective staff or faculty associations to be eligible to serve on the boards of institutions. These provisions intentionally and unnecessarily limit representation on public post-sec- 5398 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 2, 2018

ondary boards. The repeal of these provisions will support broader representation on public post-secondary institu- tional boards and enable greater efficiency in the board appointment process, especially at institutions with smaller populations from which to select board members.

The amendments to the Milk Industry Act modernize the definition of “dairy plant” by eliminating the outdated and archaic parts of this definition and creating a new authority to exempt, by regulation, places or activities from the defini- tion of “dairy plant. ” This will eliminate unnecessary regulat- ory burden, as requested by the restaurant industry, without compromising food safety. The exemption authority will be used to develop a future regulation that will identify places or activities where dairy products can be manufactured without a dairy plant licence.

Any exempted places will continue to be regulated as food premises and will have to adhere to strict safety requirements. The new exemption powers will be used to update and broaden the exemption related to frozen pre- mixes — for example, ice cream, frozen yogurt and sorbet — and allow restauranteurs to provide unique menu offer- ings or ethnic foods made in a traditional style without a dairy plant licence. The amendments to the Mental Health Act will authorize the appointment of retired physicians to sit on the review panel of the Mental Health Review Board.

These amend- ments will also retroactively validate review panels consti- tuted under the old law and the resulting decisions. These amendments will bring the legislation in line with current and appropriate practice. They address the shortage of prac- tising physicians on the review board due to limited availab- ility, loss in clinical wages and potential conflict-of-interest situations. Above all, these amendments will provide an effective means for the Mental Health Review Board to recruit consistent and capable members to resolve cases for citizens in a timely manner.

The amendment to the Public Guardian and Trustee Act will clarify that the Public Guardian and Trustee may, as a corporation sole, become and act as a director of a client’s company. As the Business Corporations Act requires a dir- ector of a company to be an individual, it is currently unclear whether the Public Guardian and Trustee, as a corporation sole, can be a director.

The amendment will ensure that the Public Guardian and Trustee can act as a director of clients’ companies in order to meet its obligations to clients by pro- tecting their financial interests. [2:55 p.m.] The amendment to the Offence Act has a specific provi- sion to expressly authorize tele-informations. When it isn’t practical for a peace officer to appear in person before a justice, they may swear an information using a written tele- communication, thereby making better and more efficient use of police and judicial resources.

The Criminal Code specifically allows for the swearing of tele-information for criminal offences, and

section 133 of the Offence Act specifically incorporates provisions of the Criminal Code if no express provision has been made in the Offence Act. Instead of relying on that authority, this amendment will provide express authority for tele-informa- tion within the Offence Act. The amendments to the Supreme Court Act were sugges- ted by the chief justice and primarily deal with masters and registrars. Masters handle pretrial applications, case man- agement conferences, settlement discussions and similar matters.

The proposed legislation confirms the chief justice’s administrative authority over masters, including such things as where they preside. The legislation codifies long-established practices on a master’s salary, benefits, retirement and security of tenure. Masters receive the same pay and benefits as provincial court judges. The amendments set out the parameters of a master’s option to elect senior status, which, similar to provincial court judges, allows a master to work part-time while col- lecting a pension. The legislation also codifies the chief justice’s administrat- ive authority over registrars.

Registrars handle disputes relat- ing to costs, the amount of lawyers’ bills, the settlement of orders and similar matters. Finally, the proposed legislation better organizes the Supreme Court Act. The proposed legislation does not change existing practices or laws. Rather, it codifies practices that have existed for many years. The proposed amendments to the Business Corporations Act, Cooperative Association Act, Credit Union Incorpor- ation Act, Financial Institutions Act and Societies Act will ensure that all audits are performed by qualified individuals.

The current legislation creates a potential loophole in which a chartered professional accountant may be authorized to perform an audit whether or not that person has been authorized by the professional organization of Chartered Professional Accountants. The proposed legislation will pro- tect B.C. companies and other entities that may be affected by a similar loophole by ensuring that all audits are per- formed by qualified individuals. Finally, Bill 36 makes amendments to the Safety Standards Act.

The Safety Standards Act governs high-risk technical equipment such as gas and electrical systems, boilers, refri- geration plants and elevators. The proposed amendments aim to increase safety both for the general public and work- ers. They do so by addressing gaps and strengthening exist- ing safety oversight tools so that regulators can do their jobs more effectively. For example, the amendments prohibit advertising to do unauthorized or grey market work.

They also authorize an on-line database of information about people who do regu- lated work, including enforcement history, so the public can make informed decisions about who to hire. M. Lee: I wish to rise to speak to some of the parts of this Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act, and I know that other colleagues of mine will continue on to talk about cer- tain parts of it as well. Tuesday, October 2, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5399

Let me just start off by making a few comments about

part 1, which is amendments to advanced education, skills and training in terms of various acts relating to the College and Institute Act, Royal Roads University Act and the University Act itself. I appreciate the Attorney General’s comments just now in terms of wanting to make governance at those insti- tutions more effective, particularly for smaller institutions. I think all legislators in this House would want to work towards that end, to always improve governance for all of our public institutions as well as our professional bodies.

But I can tell you that members on this side of the House are very focused on the changes that this government is bringing about across all levels of governance in this province and that we will be very mindful to look at, in detail, the rebalancing of these responsibilities, the composition of these boards and bodies that are being looked at by this government. When those changes are being made, one has to question in this House: why are they being made? For what purpose? What objective?

In what interest of the public is the govern- ment proposing rejigging the governance structures of these boards and professional bodies? [3:00 p.m.] This is a good example, of course. When we look at the proposed changes in this Bill 36, it’s simple: just delete this

section 59(8) of the College and Institute Act. But when you look at the

section itself…. Members on this side of the House have had a brief opportunity by way of a briefing only a few hours ago, given the rapid nature in which this legis- lation is being introduced and being discussed. Having said that, that particular provision is a provision that says that a person is not eligible to be or remain a member of the board if the person is an employee of an institution and a voting member of the executive body of the institution that has the responsibility to negotiate with the board or adjudicate dis- putes involving members of that institution, at the staff level or otherwise.

It’s one thing to say in our academic institutions, in this context…. I know from my time as a student body president, on a presidential search committee, as part of an alumni UBC board as well as chair, that all universities and colleges want to ensure they have good stakeholder involvement by faculty and staff. That’s something that I think all of us would recognize. But the question for this provision in these partic- ular acts that are being proposed to be amended here would remove something that is there for a good reason.

When they’re representing in a bargaining or negotiating context or adjudicating disputes, clearly those individual employees are performing a role and responsibility that is for the particular interests of the staff, the employees that they’re representing. That is in a direct adversarial role to the board of that partic- ular institution. In the briefing that we heard today, only a few hours ago, we understood that, well, the model for this structure is there in other universities and colleges across other parts of this country.

I will say I know that my colleague from Surrey South will have more detailed comments about that, but I question that as well, as I did in the briefing, in the sense that surely, of course, there are conflict-of-interest guidelines at the board level — and there are.

To start to move around this legislation, with the compos- ition of these boards, to eliminate what has been a reason- able, appropriate restriction, we’ll need to put more weight on the rules and the guidelines of each of those boards of these colleges and universities across this province, at least the ones to which these amendments pertain, because at the end of the day, we need to ensure that all our institutions, public as they are, are being governed in the most appropri- ate way and that we’re not resetting composition of the board that will lead to bad governance.

I will look forward to joining my colleagues from Surrey South and Abbotsford-Mission to talk about, in detail, the framing of this particular set of amendments, with the exist- ing governance rules for the colleges and universities for whom these provisions apply and the way that the board of these institutions is comprised, meaning the appointment mechanism by government or election by faculty, staff and students. These are the aspects that I think that will need a line-by-line detailed review at the committee level. I’ll just move on to the items around

part 3, which are the Attorney General Ministry’s amendments. [3:05 p.m.] I think, in terms of looking at the Mental Health Act, I appreciate the further clarification in the case of retired med- ical practitioners, their ability to continue to serve on boards that the minister may continue to establish and govern. I do think that we need to continue to look at how these boards are being structured by government and the roles that non- professionals are playing on these boards.

This is probably not the best example of that, but we do know that in the case of engineers, geoscientists and the like that there is a real move by this government to hamper and impede the ability of those professional organizations to gov- ern themselves. We will have more comments to make about that in other contexts, but I just wanted to note that we’ve heard from many British Columbians about their concerns about the way this government is seeing those with profes- sional training in this province and how they govern them- selves in an appropriate way and in a responsible way.

I’ d like to comment briefly about the Offence Act, recog- nizing that the definition of “any means of telecommunica- tion” will be important to understand at the committee level, the extent of that. I appreciate that there’s an existing Crim- inal Code

section that provides for that, under the Offence Act, to draw that in. But I think we will want to look at that more in detail. In terms of the codification, as I understand under the Supreme Court Act, in terms of the responsibilities of the chief justice and the Attorney General, we’ll be wanting to look at those roles and responsibilities. I understand there has been some good level of consultation on that. That’s something I’ d like to more thoroughly understand and rec- 5400 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 2, 2018

ognize in terms of the roles that are assigned and codified in this act. Then lastly, in terms of the changes to

part 5, the Municip- al Affairs and Housing amendments…. There may be anoth- er colleague of mine who may speak to this. But in the event that he or she doesn’t have that opportunity here as we go forward, I just wanted to make a general comment that the scope of the minister’s powers to make regulations for safety standard purposes and standards will be something that we’ll want to be looking at, at committee level, because it is a broad scope.

I appreciate that we are all wanting to ensure that there is the appropriate registry for contractors to ensure that there isn’t grey market kind of work that’s going on, as the Attor- ney General is referring to, for public safety reasons and for consumer purposes reasons. But the scope of the minister’s powers to make regulations for safety standards is something I think we’ll want to come back to in detail to have a thor- ough understanding as to the breadth of that scope and the ability for the minister to set down those standards. I look forward to further conversation and discussion at the committee level.

Hon. M. Mark: It is my honour to stand in these cham- bers. First, I’ d like to acknowledge the traditional territory of the Lekwungen-speaking people, members of the Songhees and Esquimalt First Nations, the land that we are gathering on today. I appreciate the comments from the member opposite. I look forward to a robust conversation and debate at com- mittee about the purpose and the intent about bringing into balance, through the amendments to the University Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the College and Institute Act.

We are amending legislation to remove discriminatory restrictions on people who want to serve on the boards of our public universities, institutes and colleges. We are bring- ing forward amendments to bring balance to our public post-secondary board structure. Under Bill 18, the Advanced Education Statutes Amend- ment Act, 2011, the government of the day passed legislation making certain members of the faculty or staff association ineligible to serve as an elected board member.

Quite simply, we are levelling the playing field to ensure that there’s repres- entation that reflects the diversity of our province. [3:10 p.m.] Prior to 2011, legislation governing boards provided little in respect of members’ overall duty to the institution or conduct, and did not address conflicts of interest on the part of board members. Removing these restrictions allows boards to more accurately reflect an institution’s stakeholders. This is especially important for public post- secondary institutions with smaller populations from which to select board members.

Any real or perceived conflicts of interests are already managed through bylaws in place at our public post-sec- ondary institutions. These proposed changes will increase the pool of candidates from which board members may be selected. The repeal of these provisions will support broader rep- resentation on public post-secondary institutional boards. It will enable greater efficiency in the board appointment pro- cess while still enabling boards to manage potential future situations through maintaining statute provisions and their own bylaws.

We want to ensure that the public post-secondary system works for people. Our government was elected on three pil- lars: making life more affordable, delivering services that people can count on and building an economy that works for everyone. We have 25 public post-secondary institutions in B.C. We have a robust ecosystem. But in order to guide those institu- tions, we need to have the right leadership at the table and we need to have a balanced approach to that representation at the table. For the first time, Indigenous representation on every board is at all of those 25 public post-secondary insti- tutions.

This isn’t something that happened in 2017 or 2016; it happened in 2018 — because we value the diversity of our province and we want to support our ecosystem. We are going to continue to make sure that there is rep- resentation from community leaders and community mem- bers who are going to serve the best interests of our public post-secondary institutions and serve the interests of stu- dents that go to our schools to advance their education. And there are robust measures in place to address any matters of conflict of interest, perceived conflict of interest and what have you.

I look forward to our conversation and the comments from the members opposite, here and moving forward at committee. But ultimately, the amendments here are about bringing into balance the representation of those members on our boards. A. Olsen: I want to rise today and speak to Bill 36, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act (No. 3).

I just want to say that in general, as we have had a very high-level opportunity to scan this piece of legislation — of course, we expect these types of legislation to come forward and certainly appreciate the opportunity to go through them in detail — we also shared the same initial concern with the members of the official opposition when we had the first read of it. We’ve had an opportunity today to have a briefing with respect to sections 1 to 3 of the bill. As a caucus, and as our staff, the advice that we got….

We were told that it was fine and that there were other pieces of legislation that covered the conflict-of-interest aspects of this bill. That being said, I think that, as the member from Langara raised, the opportunity to look through the piece of legis- lation in detail…. I will be tracking that conversation and that discussion very closely. And we do have questions. Of course, we want to make sure that we are, as a House and Tuesday, October 2, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5401

passing this legislation, covered on the important aspects that were raised by the member. At this stage, I’m going to take my seat and just say that we’re happy to follow the bill as it goes through. We support many, many aspects of it in principle, and I look forward to hearing the debate as it unfolds, and participating in the committee stage of this bill. [3:15 p.m.] S. Cadieux: It’s my privilege to speak to Bill 36, the Mis- cellaneous Statues Amendment Act (No. 3).

I’ll direct my comments to the changes impacting the appointments to post-secondary boards under three acts — the College and Institute Act, the Royal Roads University Act and the Uni- versity Act. Now, the general approach of government, I believe, should be to remove potential conflicts of interest. So I think it’s rather odd that the changes that are being proposed look to set up those conflicts, rather than remove those condi- tions.

The existing acts are clear in that the employees with the responsibility to negotiate with the board on the terms or conditions for employees or who had a formal role in the adjudication of disputes regarding members of the institu- tion weren’t eligible to sit on the board. These limitations, I believe, played a role in preventing conflicts, whether they be real or perceived, for either the board or the employee. The lines were certainly clear. But the legislation seeks to repeal that limitation, and that raises real concerns that those conflicts could be per- ceived. I’m not saying they would be real.

I am saying that perception is left open. I think we have a great post-secondary system. I think that our post-secondary system is well respected. It’s respected in that it has provided excellent service to British Columbi- ans and to students and our communities and that it’s gov- erned well. I think, though, that this could potentially have an unintended consequence of tarnishing that reputation. The reason that I think that is that, with the possibility of a change to the board structure…. In the briefing we were given, it was suggested by staff that the reason for repealing this

section is that it could be dis- criminatory and that no other institution in Canada has a similar provision. Fair enough. I’ll be curious to look into that further. Certainly, in the first of the university acts that I reviewed from outside the province, the University of West- ern Ontario, they indeed don’t have a provision like that. However, they do have a provision that prohibits staff or fac- ulty or a member of a governing body of another institution from sitting on the board of an institution. Theoretically, I would see that as equally discriminatory.

It also provides, within that legislation, specific conflict- of-interest provisions that suggest that no member of the board can participate in or undertake discussions of matters related to the remuneration or benefits, terms of employ- ment, rights or privilege available to employees at a uni- versity that are directly related to compensation and that are negotiated in a collective fashion for a class or group of employees of the university, if that person is, indeed, an employee of one of those organizations.

Conflict of interest does theoretically prevent individuals who are already on the bargaining committee of a union or faculty association from participating in, very much, what the work of a board of an educational institution is. That raises, for me, the issue that perhaps a board could get out of balance and, perhaps, be in a situation where they actually could not function as a board because they couldn’t reach quorum to get to decisions. It’s unlikely, but it’s possible if you remove that obligation.

Regardless, I’m sure we will, through discussion in com- mittee, get me to a point where I feel comfortable that that won’t come to fruition. However, I want to go back for a minute to a major concern. That is: why? Why now? The minister mentions bringing into balance and levelling the playing field to get to diversity. I’m all in favour of diversity. Absolutely. But I think there are other ways to get to that, not the least of which would be to change the university acts that we have to actually provide statutory positions for members from diverse groups. [3:20 p.m.] We do that already.

There are seats for student representa- tives, seats for faculty and staff representatives, a seat for the president. I don’t understand why we wouldn’t go that route if we were looking to ensure First Nations representation, gender balance, or things like that. However, that isn’t what we’re here debating today or looking at today. What we’re looking at is just a wholesale removal of a clause that, while it might be seen by some to be discriminatory, also could be argued to be there for very good reason — to prevent per- ceived conflict-of-interest situations.

Now, the minister and the staff have said that this is about bringing balance. That’s fine. Then, I guess, if I’m looking at this as an individual member of the faculty, I want to know that my faculty representatives, my executive on my associ- ation and my bargaining unit, are there for me, to represent my best interests. If I’m the university, I want to know that my board is there, first and foremost, for the university. In fact, the codes of conduct for the universities demand that of their board members.

But I see that that creates a big prob- lem, if somebody is actually trying to do both of those roles at once. How can you have your loyalty sit with both organ- izations at once? Conflict of interest is real, and that’s why we have a body of law that talks about it and deals with that.

We also have policies, I agree, within the institutions — although I would argue, if we are going to move in this direction, that perhaps the conflict-of-interest policy and bylaws at the universities should be rolled into the acts, as they have done in other jur- isdictions, to be really upfront and clear, because they are not the same from university to university. That, in of itself, pres- ents a problem. I think curiouser still is that today we are hearing from the government that the argument for making this change, for 5402 British Columbia Debates Tuesday, October 2, 2018

the repeal of this

section of legislation, is that we are prevent- ing what could be a discriminatory practice. I find that dis- tinctly curious, given that just a couple of hours ago, here in this chamber, the same government had great difficulty and chose to argue that it is not discriminatory to preclude 85 percent of workers from working on infrastructure pro- jects in this province because of an association or a lack of an association. How is that different?

We are suggesting that by choice of associations, choice of role to serve as a member of a bargaining unit or a tribunal, you then shouldn’t be able to sit on the board of the institu- tion. Y ou’ve made a choice; you have a loyalty. That’s great. Y ou have a role. It doesn’t prevent you from ever sitting on that board, but for that period of time, it does. The government says: “No, that’s not fair; that’s discrim- inatory.

These people should be able to hold both positions. ” But that same government, then, does not think it’s discrim- inatory to say that because someone is not a member of a union, they shouldn’t be able to participate in the infrastruc- ture projects in this province. To me, you just can’t have it both ways, and I’ d really like to discuss further, with the min- ister at committee stage, how they square that circle. [3:25 p.m.] I think the reality is that the proposed repeal signals a dir- ection that this NDP government wants to go in.

I find it troubling that they would prefer to set up the potential for conflicts of interest on the boards of our very trusted post- secondary institutions. I’m curious to explore with the min- ister why exactly she thinks this is necessary, why or how it brings balance, how it levels the playing field to get to diversity on the boards. I’ d like to understand the challenges that the minister feels are going to be alleviated with this change. I’ d like to know: what about the board structure of these universities isn’t working? Who exactly is the government seeking to benefit with the change?

I think we need to plan to safeguard the reputation of the institutions and to provide the opportunity for real and perceived conflicts of interest to be managed, if we’re going to make this change. Is the minister going to propose additional changes to legislation that would limit the number of seats that could be held on the board by somebody that also holds positions that would be in conflict with the board? I think we want to be able to make sure that the boards remain operational and functional. I think that’s important.

We’ll look forward to the committee stage of the debate and look forward to dis- cussing why this change is necessary now, all of the possible implications and how they are to be mitigated. S. Gibson: It’s a privilege for me to follow my colleague from Surrey South with her thoughtful ruminations on this legislation. I, too, will add some comments on Bill 36, par- ticularly focusing on areas related to post-secondary board appointments.

I picked up on the minister’s remarks a moment ago, par- ticularly focusing on the word “discriminatory. ” I feel that, when we get into committee stage, that’s perhaps the focus we need to take, because clearly there’s also a discriminatory dimension to this, which we are starting to engage with as opposition. I have a particular interest in post-secondary education, having served for some years in that environment. When I looked at this, I was, frankly, a little troubled.

Whenever I look at legislation like this, where there’s so-called tweaking that takes place, I become mildly alarmed that there’s something else going on. Really, the public good has to be, above all else, at the top of the priorities. As the member for Surrey South commented, we need to get to the heart of this and find out: “Okay. Why is this coming up at this time?” Conflict of interest is something that we, as MLAs, don’t just talk about; we live it. We submit regular records to a stat- utory officer, regarding conflict of interest.

We realize that if we violate that, there’s concern, both officially and unoffi- cially, with the public. Conflict of interest gets to the heart, as well, of this proposed legislation, Bill 36. The board, after all, is the employer. The board operates the college or university — some 25, as we’ve heard, around our province. The union president or executive member — their job is to represent the interests of the uni- on. We would say: “Well, that’s not surprising. ” Well, it’s surprising when they get them together because, of course, there are going to be tensions. That’s a healthy thing.

Those tensions are indeed healthy. [L. Reid in the chair.] The members may be advocating for working conditions, compensation, benefits, others, and there are times when the interests of the employer and, if you will, the employee rep- resented by the union come into conflict. There’s a tension there, a natural tension. However, with this case being made to allow that individual to serve in this board environment, it kind of changes the equilibrium. [3:30 p.m.] On most boards, there are already faculty members. They are there right now. There are staff members there right now.

This compromise that is being proposed would seem to run counter to the current culture. Again, getting back to the word “discriminatory, ” I begin to wonder just what currency it has. These staff members, as I’ve mentioned, and faculty members that serve on boards — their role is to do so as uni- versity representatives, not representatives of the particular viewpoint or constituency. That’s the difference. I think it might be analogous to our role here as MLAs. We have members on that side representing a certain party. Here, on this side, we represent a certain party.

But for all sides of this House, when people come to talk to us as con- stituents, we take off our partisan hat and help them the best way we can. That’s our role, and we do that, hopefully, with the best interests of our constituents. However, in advancing this viewpoint, that individual, who will now be allowed to serve, has a particular agenda. Tuesday, October 2, 2018 British Columbia Debates 5403

Remember, currently there are faculty members and staff members already there, but they do it in their role as repre- sentatives of the university or college. Ultimately when you have to make a decision in that role, you’re going to have to decide: do I do it for the benefit of this side of the agenda, of the constituents, or this side? That choice is going to be diffi- cult to make. I want to make another comment, if I may.

If union lead- ers, in their role, serve on the board as advocates for that role, for their union, here is a couple of problems that I want to alert government to, and perhaps they haven’t thought about this. It was alluded to a little bit earlier by my colleague from Surrey South. Here’s what happens. A decision is made by the board which is contrary to the union member, who is now serving on the board under this current proposed legislation, Bill 36.

The problem is that when the decision is made, that indi- vidual, presumably, will dissent on a particular item related to employee interests — compensation, benefits, working conditions. Then what will they say when the decision is made? Will they came out and say: “I was against that, ” or will they be quiet and acquiesce and support the good of the collective? Tough choice. The second point to make, which is related to this, ancil- lary to my first comment, is the fact that boards deal with confidential matters, often related to employer relations. Confidential.

But that member will be attending all those meetings. Y ou see the problem here? It’s a little more com- plicated than, I think, government had thought when they first suggested this. As someone that’s had the pleasure of working in that environment, I can see that this could be a bit problematic. I want to recommend, with respect, that government reconsider this dimension. It could be a problem. I want to suggest that. In

summary, it’s the potential for conflict of interest that I think we need to be aware of. It could happen. Clearly, it’s something that could happen provincewide in all of our institutions. Conflict doesn’t have to be real. It can be per- ceived. It can be something that the public notices. The boards of colleges and universities sit at the pleasure, for the most part, of government. They’re there to protect the interests and reflect the standards of the community. All the staff, faculty and students expect that the board will operate in their best interests.

I’m looking forward to the debate that will be continuing at committee stage. I want to ensure that we do the very best for our institutions. We have fantastic universities and col- leges in this province. They work well together. There’s great synergism. [3:35 p.m.] In fact, we are the model for all of Canada. Many prov- inces would like to emulate what we do — the amount of warm relationships, collegial relationships, between our col- leges and our universities. So why is government making this change?

Let’s get to the bottom of that, please, and let’s deter- mine that we’re doing something in the best interest of the public good of our universities and colleges. Hon. M. Farnworth: It’s my pleasure just to take a few minutes to talk about what I’ d remind the member — that it is the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. It is not the conspiratorial theory statutes amendment act. Perhaps what I might do is just sort of outline exactly what a miscellaneous statutes amendment act is and how they come about. Now, laws in this place are made in a number of ways.

There’s legislation that comes forward on the basis of it being part of a party platform, which is debated at election time and parties campaign on that, regardless of whether it is our party or the opposition party or the third party. They come in with an agenda of work that they want to do that requires legislation. That’s commonplace to all governments. Also, there is often legislation that government is requi

Document details

Collection	British Columbia — Debates (Hansard)
Citation	20181002pm-Hansard-n152
Type	hansard
Volume / chapter	20181002pm Hansard n152
Language	en
Format	pdf
Source	PROVINCIAL
Identifier	0afcb67e16fefa5318943f4bcdc2b3ff64b44ae2

Source file is stored in the law ingest library (pdf).