Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 416

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Chetwynd and District Hospital Foundation and fundraising

M. Bernier

B.C. Book Day

K. Paddon

Richmond Poverty Reduction Coalition and work of Deirdre

Whalen

T. Wat

Watershed restoration and protection

F. Donnelly

Mount Boucherie Bears robotics team

B. Stewart

North Shore Rescue and neurodivergence inclusion

S. Chant

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and illicit drug use in health care facilities

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

Biosolids use and organic matter recycling regulation

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

Recognition of Aboriginal title and potential compensation

J. Rustad

Hon. M. Rankin

Drug decriminalization program and illicit drug use in health care facilities

E. Sturko

Hon. A. Dix

Report on safe drug supply and diversion to illicit market

E. Sturko

Hon. A. Dix

Drug decriminalization program and community safety issues

T. Wat

Hon. J. Whiteside

Drug decriminalization program and government action on issues

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Alone: The Prolonged and Repeated Isolation of Youth in Custody , April 2024

Petitions

S. Chant

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Bill 3 — Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 22 — Safe Access to Schools Act

Hon. N. Sharma

S. Furstenau

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 19 — Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2024

N. Letnick

Hon. G. Lore

E. Ross

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Education and Child Care (continued)

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Singh

TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2024

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Coulter: As part of Science Meets Parliament today, I’m happy to host three

associate and assistant professors and scientists from the program today for

a brief shadow and tour and also a lunch.

We have Runa Das, associate professor in the college of

interdisciplinary studies at Royal Roads University; Kimberly Thomson,

assistant professor at Simon Fraser University, whose research focus

includes children’s mental health promotion from a public policy lens; and

Travis Salway, assistant professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser

University.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today are some wonderful people from Surrey-Newton. They

are here to watch question period and look around this beautiful building

later on today and, hopefully, will drop by for a cup of tea in my

office.

They are here to just watch what we do here. They are part of a

walking group. They come and have coffee across the street from my office,

and I go and listen to their very, very good stories.

They are Yvonne Brennan, Lucie Walker, Elaine Saunders, Joyce Doyle,

Gail Carter, Donna Carlaw and Joan Danis. Please help me give them a very,

very warm welcome.

Thank you for coming.

R. Merrifield: I’m thrilled, as the champion for the day on behalf of the B.C. United

official opposition, to welcome to the House 31 individuals blazing trails

as emerging leaders in the science community from across B.C. They are here

with the Canadian Science Policy Centre to bring its federal program,

Science Meets Parliament, to the Legislature.

Many members of our caucus will be meeting with these incredible

scientists to promote dialogue and help strengthen the connections between

B.C. scientific and political communities so they can learn about

policy-making in the Legislative Assembly.

Would the House please join me in welcoming our Science Meets

Parliament guests to the House.

K. Chen: Today we have about 150 members and friends from the North American

Taiwanese Women’s Association, NATWA, visiting the Legislature from all over

Canada and North America. Given their group size, they won’t join QP, but I

do want to give a special thanks to our parliamentary education office,

especially Sally Lee, for organizing their visit today.

I also want to thank Ms. Cecilia Chueh,

陳慧中老師, chén huì zhōng

lǎo shī, for bringing these visitors,

as we also shared how B.C. is special to Taiwanese Canadians.

We have four MLAs with a Taiwanese background. I am also honoured to

be the first Taiwanese Canadian to be appointed to the B.C. cabinet, and the

first one to retire too.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the contributions of many

Taiwanese Canadians and also hope these friends from NATWA enjoy their

visit.

[10:10 a.m.]

S. Chant: I, too, have had the opportunity to meet with a couple of our

scientists, and I am just dumbstruck by the work and method that they bring

to doing what they’re doing.

One of them, Paweena Sukhawathanakul, is working with the school

systems in trying to integrate mental health as an ongoing component, as an

expectation in the schools. We’ve been doing a lot of work in that area, and

what she’s doing is looking at making it so that it’s just a given, just a

part of being in schools, rather than a pilot here or what this school

district is doing there. She’s doing amazing work.

Then we have Andrea Mellor. Now, it’s very complicated for me to try

and explain. She’s a psychologist and is working towards understanding how

to support our street-entrenched youths to try and get beyond where they’re

at and try and make it so that they have a life beyond “Where’s the next

meal?” or other things.

The work that they are doing is phenomenal. They’re both out of

University of Victoria. I am delighted to have them with me

today.

I hope this House can make them feel truly welcome and honour and

respect the work that they are doing.

B. D’Eith: Today is one of my favourite days. It’s B.C. Book Day.

I wanted to mention that B.C. Book Day was actually established by

former Speaker Linda Reid and the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and

Sport. We’re really grateful for that. It’s a great day to celebrate

publishing, magazines and the book industry in British Columbia.

I wanted to say we have got lots of folks in the precinct today. We’ve

got Leslie Bootle, who’s the executive director of Books B.C.; Sylvia Skene,

who’s the executive director of Magazines B.C.; Laraine Coates, who’s the

director of marketing and business development at UBC Press and vice-chair

of Books B.C.

We’ve got Don Gorman, who’s publisher of Rocky Mountain Books and

chair of Books B.C.; and Brian Lam, publisher at Arsenal Pulp Press; Alina

Cerminara, who’s the publisher at FOLKLIFE ; Barb Risto, the

publisher at INSPIRED 55+ Lifestyle Magazine ; Nina Wagner, who’s

group VP of publishing and operations in Canada Wide Media and Alive

Publishing Group.

Of course, we’ve got Prem Gill here, from Creative B.C.; Wendy

Atkinson, who’s the publisher at Ronsdale Press; and Lora McKay, who is a

senior director with the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

As parliamentary secretary, I wanted to welcome you all to B.C. Book

Day.

Thanks, everybody.

B. Anderson: Today I have a really special guest in the gallery, Cameron Wetter. He

is a third-year political science student at UBC.

Cameron is from Nelson, and I am really delighted. This is his first

time watching question period. He also worked at the Nelson and District

Community Complex, where my mom works. She’s known Cameron for a really long

time.

I’m really excited for him to get to see the proceedings in the House

today. He’s also joining us for the lunch with scientists.

Can this whole House please make him feel very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have some very special guests in the gallery today.

I’m really delighted to introduce Grace Garraway. Grace is a grade 10

student at Vic High, and she’s shadowing me today. Grace is interested in

rowing. She likes to read true crime and hopes to be a pediatrician. It’s

really great to meet Grace and to spend some time with her.

I also have another special guest, Gabe Luna, who is shadowing me

today. Gabe is a UVic student. He’s studying creative writing and political

science. He has taken peace and conflict and multimedia art courses and

recovery advocacy. Gabe is a very special guest. I have known Gabe since he

was a wee baby. His parents, John and Julie Luna, are two of my dearest and

closest friends, and it’s such a delight to have Gabe here today.

With them is also a friend of mine, Naomi Devine. Naomi is a master

communicator and strategist, but what impresses me most about Naomi is that

she doesn’t do cold-water dipping. She goes swimming for half an hour or

more in the ocean. I’m so impressed by that capacity to stay in cold water.

I do not have it.

[10:15 a.m.]

A shout-out to the Science Meets Parliament group. I really enjoyed

our conversation yesterday morning. I look forward to spending more time

with them.

And it’s wonderful to see Mayor Silas White up in the gallery as

well.

There are lots of friendly faces in the gallery today. Would the House

make them all most welcome.

D. Routley: As a previous speaker noted, it is B.C. Book Day, and Gabriola Island

is in the House.

I would like to welcome New Society Publishers. They’re a publishing

house that helps build a just and ecologically sustainable society. New

Society was the first carbon-neu­tral publishing house in North

America. Joining us are publisher Julie Raddysh and sales manager EJ

Hurst.

Let’s make them all welcome.

N. Simons: My friend from Cowichan Valley introduced the mayor of Gibsons, Silas

White, here. Thank you for that.

It’s nice to see you, Silas.

Silas is also here as the publisher of Nightwood Editions, and he’s

representing Douglas and McIntyre as well as Harbour Publishing. Sunshine

Coast is well represented in this House.

Thank you, and let’s make Silas welcome.

H. Yao: I do have two introductions to make today.

Firstly, I want to wish Chi Yuen Young a happy 90th birthday. For

anybody who’s been attending other community events and engaging our

community in a suppor­tive way, we all know who he is. He’s the one

who is 90 years old, still carries a lovely camera, always strikes up a joke

and makes sure we are all entertained by his lovely presence and always

sharing a photo with us.

The second introduction I would like to introduce is the B.C. Winter

Games 2024. We know it has been quite a success in B.C., and we have quite a

few constituents who are participating in the games. I would like to

recognize many of them, and bear with me if I butcher anybody’s last name.

We will try to send a proper spelling to Hansard.

We have Cynthia K.A. Wan Lei from badminton, Sora Murakami from figure

skating, Haru Murakami from karate. We have Toshihide Uchiage, karate coach;

Kira Hodge, ringette coach assistant; and Hamza Elburai, wheelchair

basketball.

Thank you everybody, and please join us and congratulate everybody,

every one of them.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Wendy Atkinson, a constituent of

the West End, here. She’s the publisher of Ronsdale Press.

I would urge members to pick up Ronsdale Press’s books — great B.C.

authors, great B.C. history, incredible stories — and thank Wendy for

picking up the mantle of Ronsdale after Ron Hatch, who had long been the

publisher and a constituent as well, passed away. Wendy has revitalized the

publication house and is bringing great titles to our shelves, and I thank

her for it.

A. Walker: I want to introduce to the House two incredible scientists that I met

this morning through the Science Meets Parliament committee.

Nisha from TRU is doing some incredible work as far as trying to

screen for breast cancer, as well as advanced cattle genomics.

Xuekui, all the way from the University of Victoria, is doing some

incredible work right now trying to diagnose COPD for treatment, among other

interesting things.

I thank them for coming and hope the House can make them feel very

welcome.

J. Rice: I, too, have two scientists visiting today that I am struggling to

connect with, so this is my shameless, shameless ask, because I’ve tried by

email, and I had no responses.

I am booked all day, but if someone could take duty from 11 to 12 or

sometime between 1:30 and 3 p.m. — 11 to 12 is preferable for my scientists,

I believe — I could actually meet with them. If I don’t get to meet with

them, I’m happy to introduce anyone here that’s interested to them, because

they have really interesting research topics.

Kaylee Byers….

The Speaker: Member, no electronics.

J. Rice: Oh, okay.

Kaylee and Heather, I sincerely apologize.

Kaylee Byers…. Actually, I know people are interested in this topic. I

know nothing about it, but it’s chronic wasting disease. Her research is

around that.

[10:20 a.m.]

Then for Heather Palis, she’s actually looking at substance use

disorder and the fact that so many of us, so many of our constituents, are

suffering from this.

However, here I’m going to hypothesize what I think her hypotheses

are. A lot of people are misdiagnosed. I don’t believe so many people

spontaneously pop out with substance use disorder, that there are other

co-morbid conditions. I want to give you one example. This is something I’m

passionate about. Twenty-eight percent of people who are referred to a mood

disorder clinic had undiagnosed ADHD. That’s what I was hoping to talk to

her about.

Thank you. Make them feel welcome.

The Speaker: If any other scientist was not introduced, I introduce all of

you.

Welcome. All of you are most welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

CHETWYND AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL

FOUNDATION AND

FUNDRAISING

M. Bernier: This Saturday in Chetwynd, the hospital foundation will be holding

their annual gala, and it will once again be a sold-out

event.

In 2022, that saw their first attempt at a big fundraising event.

That year they were able to raise enough money from community members

and business supporters to purchase an ultrasound machine. This year,

thanks to everyone involved, the plan is to try to raise enough money to

purchase two ECG machines and a bladder scanner.

With all the challenges that Chetwynd has been facing in

recruiting and retaining much-needed doctors and nurses, and the

hospital being forced into ongoing diversions because of that, the

passionate and concerned people in Chetwynd are not giving up. The

community members keep stepping up and trying to manage what is at least

in their control, which is staying positive and doing what they can to

support and promote the much-needed health services in our

region.

Foundation board members Melanie Maracle, Kelly Berg, Laura Howes,

Janet Wark, Jackalynn Redenbach, Jen Parrish, Fiona Klassen and Kayla

Strachan deserve a tremendous thank-you from all of us for devoting so

much of their time supporting the hospital and doing all the hard work

to hold fundraisers, like this weekend’s gala, in order to fill the gaps

and bring in the much-needed equipment and supports all the people in

Chetwynd and surrounding area need.

This will be an exciting event, titled the Gatsby Gala. I can tell

you that the people in Chetwynd pull out all the stops and throw one of

the best galas in the Peace region. It’s an event that I am again

excited to be going to with my family.

I’m always proud to be supporting this important community group

and the people who live in Chetwynd.

B.C. BOOK DAY

K. Paddon: I rise in the House today to recognize British Columbia’s tenth

annual B.C. Book Day.

I know so many of us have memories of either being read to or

reading the stories of this beautiful province. As part of B.C. Creative

Industries Week, B.C. Book Day is an opportunity for British Columbians

to celebrate the impact of the book publishing industry on the province

and how it’s shaping B.C.’s creative landscape. It brings our stories,

culture and literature to millions of readers at homes, in schools and

around the world.

In B.C., we recognize the value, the immense transformative

effect, of literature. Books expose us to diverse perspectives,

experiences and ideas, fostering empathy, awareness and greater

understanding. Books can also inspire personal growth, motivate us to

set goals, expand our point of view and engage our critical thinking.

All of this is often a catalyst for positive change and social

connection that improves our quality of life.

market in Canada. In 2022, this vital part of B.C.’s creative sector

contributed $74 million to the GDP and provided 679 jobs, employing

3,288 people, including freelancers. In 2023, we announced $600,000 in

funding for books and magazine publishers over three years as part of

our historic $42 million for the creative sector.

[10:25 a.m.]

I know at home on my reading list, next comes Like Joyful

Tears by David Starr, a Ronsdale Press selection.

Today, in honour of B.C. Book Day, I’d like everybody to join the

hard-working people in the publishing industry in the rotunda, where

they’re spotlighting many of B.C.’s talented writers, authors, as well

as our dedicated editors and publishers. We have so much talent to be

proud of in this province.

Can I please ask all the members of this House to join me in

applauding British Columbians working in B.C.’s book

industry.

Happy B.C. Book Day.

RICHMOND POVERTY REDUCTION

COALITION AND WORK OF

DEIRDRE WHALEN

T. Wat: Today I rise to recognize and echo the persistent and commendable

efforts of Deirdre Whalen, president of the Richmond Poverty Reduction

Coalition.

Ms. Whalen’s recent correspondence with our government highlights

urgent concerns that affect our constituents in Richmond and resonate

across our province. Ms. Whalen has been a staunch advocate for

providing free transit for youth between the ages of 13 and 18 to reduce

initiative supports our shared vision for a sustainable, inclusive

community where young people can thrive with­out the financial

burden of transportation costs.

Ms. Whalen emphasized that such programs empower our youth,

promoting independence and facilitating greater participation in

educational and social activities. Furthermore, Ms. Whalen’s critique of

the Childcare B.C. plan draws our attention to the pressing need for

more effective and equitable child care solutions in

Richmond.

Richmond lags behind in achieving the targets set by affordable

child care, impacting families and caretakers who depend on these

essential services. In light of this, it is imperative that we, as

legislators, reassess our approaches and support initiatives like those

proposed by the Richmond Poverty Reduction Coalition. Their

recommendation calls for a more holistic and inclusive framework that

truly addresses the need of our community, particularly our most

vulnerable populations.

Let us take this moment to acknowledge the hard work and

dedication of advocates like Deirdre Whalen. Their commitment to public

welfare challenges us to match their passion with actionable policy that

addres­ses these critical issues.

WATERSHED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION

F. Donnelly: Often in politics you get to work on the things you love, but as

Parliamentary Secretary for Watershed Restoration, I’ve been working

with First Nations and communities that want to restore watersheds and

grow B.C.’s restoration economy.

Healthy watersheds support local economies and create resilient

communities. Watersheds like the Fraser, Columbia, Skeena, Taku and the

Cowichan produce clean, abun­dant water along with plants and

animals we rely on for free until they don’t.

With increasing floods, wildfires and droughts, it’s time to

protect the best and restore the rest. Investing in the watershed sector

is not only necessary to support growing communities, but economically,

B.C. could be a global leader in water solutions where global demand is

predicted to reach $1.5 trillion by 2028.

Last year the B.C.–First Nations Water Table announced an

unprecedented $100 million investment in healthy watersheds, and we

invested $85 million for B.C.’s salmon restoration fund. This year in

our budget we invested $103 million to help farmers retain water on

their land. These investments demonstrate the tip of the iceberg in

terms of opportunities in watershed restoration, Indigenous guardians,

water tech and monitoring. But we need other partners at the table, like

the federal government, private sector and philanthropy.

Many nations, municipalities and conservation organizations have

been hard at it for years, advocating for and restoring watersheds like

Cowichan Tribes, Polis, Watersheds B.C., B.C. freshwater legacy, PSF,

First Nations Fisheries Council, the LFFA, UFFCA, the Nechako Watershed

Roundtable, Watershed Watch, Redd Fish, Raincoast, Rivershed, Resilient

Waters, and the list goes on.

Building a strong, water-secure future requires shared approaches

to protecting and restoring watersheds. Let’s work together to advance a

restoration economy.

[10:30 a.m.]

MOUNT BOUCHERIE BEARS ROBOTICS TEAM

B. Stewart: Last month I celebrated the Mount Bou­cherie Bears robotics

team’s first-place finish at the Canadian Pacific Regionals here in

Victoria, which earned them a spot in the championships in Houston,

Texas.

After the impressive win at the Canadian Pacific Regionals, the

team immediately returned to West Kelowna, where they immediately

started fundraising on a campaign to cover their travel and expenses to

Houston, Texas. Many families and friends donated to the GoFundMe

website, while parents coordinated a comedy night fundraiser.

Our thanks go out to the many community and core sponsors,

including On Side Restoration, Sundeck railings, Gorman Bros. Lumber and

Emil Anderson Group, whose supports were instrumental.

Together with my colleague the MLA for Kelowna-Mission, we were

honoured to play a role in helping these bright young minds reach

Houston. Watching them, with great anticipation, compete at the first

robotics competition last weekend was not just a privilege; it was an

inspiring experience.

In Houston, the MBSS team showed remarkable ten­acity and

skills. They engaged with many like-minded youth from across the world,

all sharing a passion for science, technology, engineering, mathematics

and future innovation. The MBSS robotics team, with teacher Mike

Boulanger, stood as proud ambassadors for West Kelowna and western

Canada, exemplifying gracious professionalism and immense

pride.

Before leaving Houston, they were already making plans to grow the

team through community outreach, setting their sights on returning to

the world championships for years to come. Community support and

sponsorship are vital to make their dreams come true. West Kelowna,

let’s keep that dream alive.

For those that wish to help, please contact Mount Boucherie

Secondary School for more information on how to contribute.

Go, Bears, go!

NORTH SHORE RESCUE

AND NEURODIVERGENCE

INCLUSION

S. Chant: I want to acknowledge I am speaking on the territory of the

lək̓ʷəŋən people, specifically

the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations, and I thank them for the opportunity

to live and work here.

Additionally, I am fortunate to live, work and learn on the

unceded territory of the səlilwətaɬ

and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations when I am in

my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour.

Established in 1965, North Shore Rescue stands as one of Canada’s

oldest search and rescue teams, providing invaluable support on the

local mountains of North and West Vancouver and extending assistance

throughout the province, the country and occasionally abroad. Under the

leadership of Mike Danks, who is the chief of the North Van district

fire service, North Shore Rescue volunteers are prepared to respond to

emergencies anytime, anywhere, in any weather, a dedication showcased in

their upcoming second season television series.

Over the years, North Shore Rescue has been involved in numerous

call-outs pertaining to aiding the neurodivergent community, utilizing

ground teams, advanced helicopter flight teams, trained search dogs and

forward-looking infrared technology. These operations range from

searches for missing individuals on local trails or urban areas to those

in the back country, typically initiated due to elopement or accidental

separation from groups.

The team’s commitment to readiness and inclusivity is evident in

their ongoing efforts to develop inclusive outdoor safety search and

rescue educational materials and a video with particular focus on the

neurodivergent and developmentally disabled community that is set for

release in September of 2024. North Shore Rescue’s journey towards

inclusivity has involved formalized autism training, the creation of

sensitivity kits for vehicles, revamped guidelines for neurodivergent

individuals, specialized search protocols and the integration of new

behaviour profiles into search management strategy.

Their dedication ensures that every individual, regardless of

their neurodiversity, can be safely reunited with their

families.

Gratitude is extended to all North Shore volunteers for their

unwavering service.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

R. Merrifield: Well, the Premier and the Health Minister have consistently

ignored the evidence presented in a leaked memo from Northern Health, as

well as the courageous testimonials and voices of nurses. All of these

sources reveal that the NDP policy directly supports illicit drug use

within hospitals.

Now, a shocking second memo from Island Health has been leaked,

dated March 12, 2024, directing acute care staff to not only accommodate

but actively support drug use in health facilities.

[10:35 a.m.]

The guidelines in the memo are very clearly worded and are

intended to facilitate illicit drug use in the hospital. Here’s what it

says: “During admission, expectations, co-create a plan for substance

use during admission.”

Why is the Premier actively facilitating open, illicit drug use in

our hospitals, and when will he adopt B.C. United’s policy to end his

failed and reckless decriminalization experiment?

Hon. A. Dix: The position of the government is that we’ll take all steps to

protect all patients in our hospitals and provide them with a high

quality of care. In order to support that, there will be one policy,

across British Columbia, that lays out the expectations for everyone

involved very clearly. Members of the House and others in British

Columbia will see that policy soon.

We are working with nurses, health sciences professionals, health

care workers and experts in the field to ensure that that protects

health care workers, protects patients — all patients — and ensures that

people get a high quality of care, including those who are in our

hospitals dealing with substance use issues, and we’re going to continue

to do so.

Part of that process, surely, is to engage with all patients

entering hospital to ensure that they’re supported in every possible

way. We’re going to continue to take the steps necessary to protect

patients, to protect staff and to protect everyone who has to be,

contrary to what they want, admitted into acute care

hospitals.

The Speaker: Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Further study and more delay is not going to fix this. The second

leaked internal memo is as shocking as the first, and it’s dated mere

weeks ago. The memo instructs staff clearly: “Instead of requiring

patients to stop using substances when they access care, staff must work

collaboratively with patients.”

It goes further, telling staff to follow patient-identified,

substance-use goals in the hospital; provide drug-testing strips; ensure

the easy availability of supplies; regularly empty sharps disposal

containers; and co-create a plan for substance use during

admission.

This memo directly contradicts the Premier’s and the Health

Minister’s denials and exposes their claims as false.

Why is the Premier refusing to even admit to the truth, and will

he finally adopt B.C. United’s policy to end his disastrous

decriminalization experiment?

Hon. A. Dix: We are very clear now that we need to act, in hospitals, in the

interests of everybody. Everyone who goes to a hospital deserves the

highest quality of care. Everybody who goes to a hospital needs to leave

hospital healthier than they went in.

Everybody needs to be protected. That includes people who are in a

hospital with no substance use issues at all, with very serious other

concerns which you have to have to be admitted to an acute care

hospital. It means nurses, doctors, health sciences professionals and

health care workers, who work with all patients in our

hospitals.

Of course, when people go into a hospital, we have to engage with

them, with the health issues that they face. Staff will continue to do

that, to provide the utmost possible care to everyone in our

hospital.

Let me be clear to everybody. Nobody should have to face

secondhand smoke in our hospital. That’s not allowed. It won’t be

allowed. It isn’t allowed. Their interests need to be

protected.

We have added very significant security staff. I know the

opposition is against this.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, they’ve expressed that view in the House.

Some 320 relational security staff to support our health care

workers, at the request and recommendation of the BCNU and the HEU and

others, and we’ll continue to take those actions.

S. Bond: Well, first of all, let me make the record very clear. The

minister knows that just as recently as yesterday, I asked him to make

sure that nurses in Merritt and Quesnel had the security that they need

and deserve. Let’s get the record straight about who supports what in

this Legislature.

[10:40 a.m.]

We should also be clear. The minister stands up and says he’s

doing everything possible. I asked him weeks ago to issue a directive to

deal with the issue of illicit drug use in hospitals. He

refused.

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, the leaked memo, the

second one, exposes an even more dangerous directive. Nurses are now,

shockingly, being instructed to teach patients how to inject illicit

drugs directly into their intravenous lines. The Island Health directive

explicitly states: “If a patient has an IV or catheter, provide

education on injecting into lines.”

The minister can say it isn’t allowed. It is happening every

single day in hospitals across the province.

When is this minister or this Premier going to do the right thing,

listen to nurses and health care professionals and end this disastrous

decriminalization?

Hon. A. Dix: I’ve been doing exactly that. It’s why…. We put in place the

relational security model and added 320 relational security officers at

the support and instigation of nurses in British Columbia who were

opposed to a privatized model that had been put in place by the previous

government.

We are working….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. A. Dix: I have been clear that the rules will be the same in every

hospital in B.C. Included in that process are direct discussions we have

had with nurses, with health science professionals, with health care

workers, with doctors, with ambulance paramedics in B.C. over the last

number of months, in the last number of weeks and in the last few

days.

We are going to continue to take steps to ensure that the rules

are understood, that the rules are applied and that protections for all

patients that go in the hospital…. Every one of them deserves care and

respect. Every one of them will be enforced and applied, and we’re going

to continue to do that.

The Speaker: Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: For the minister’s information, here’s what the current rules are

telling nurses in British Columbia they have to do. Nurses are told to

train patients on how to inject illicit drugs into their veins through

IV lines. They are told to create a plan for substance use during

admission. They are told to facilitate patient-identified substance use

goals by providing burner kits with crack pipes and matches.

Does the minister actually think that nurses should be forced to

endure daily exposure to aggressive and volatile behaviour and drug use

that puts them and patients at risk? It’s time the minister listened to

the nurses who are standing up across this province and begging him to

do something.

It is time for this minister to acknowledge that those are the

rules that are currently in place. He had the opportunity to issue a

directive. He refused to do it, leaving our nurses and patients at risk

in hospitals.

Will he get up today, do the right thing and end the

decriminalization experiment?

Hon. A. Dix: Everyone who is admitted to an acute care hospital deserves the

best possible care. Everyone needs to have their interests

protected.

Many people, of course, the vast majority, enter with no substance

abuse issues but serious health issues. Their interests need to be

protected. If someone has a car accident and ends up in hospital, their

interest needs to be protected. Everyone’s interests need to be

protected. When students come into the hospital, their needs and their

interests have to be understood by the care staff, and that will

continue to happen.

I’ll tell you, hon. Speaker. Rules will be in place. Rules will be

applied.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. A. Dix: What we’re doing and what the….

I know the hon. member for Prince George–Vale­mount meets

with nurses. I meet with nurses. Again and again, I hear their views. I

hear their passion for supporting their patients and the absolute need….

We have to support nurses and ensure that people are safe — and health

sciences professionals and health care workers and ambulance paramedics

and people who work in the community.

They all deserve our support and protection, and they will have

it.

[10:45 a.m.]

BIOSOLIDS USE AND ORGANIC MATTER

RECYCLING

REGULATION

A. Olsen: Yesterday was Earth Day. So it’s important that the Minister of

Environment answer some questions about our environment.

In 2011, the current Minister of Environment wrote to the Saanich

Peninsula Wastewater Commission, asking us to maintain a ban on the land

application of biosolids within the capital regional district. I was a

member of that commission. I was a commissioner on the commission that

the minister wrote, encouraging…. I agreed with the minister, and my

vote on the record reflects that.

There was strong evidence then, just as there is strong evidence

now, that the accumulation of pharmaceuticals, personal care products

and PFAS — perfluoroalkyls, polyfluoroalkyls — can accumulate and

concentrate in bio­solids. PFAS are also known as forever

chemicals. They’re dangerous to human health and the environment.

Scientific evidence showed 13 years ago that we should be concerned, and

the evidence has only strengthened on that matter.

Instead of updating the organic matter regulation, this Minister

of Environment, in 2019, wrote to the CRD re­quiring them to

consider the land application of biosolids. It’s unacceptable that the

Minister of Environment permits the toxic material to be applied to

lands across the province.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Will he immediately

update the organic matter regulation and require this to be before the

end of this parliamentary session?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

There are a lot of complicated issues related to biosolids. As the

member noted, he supported previous direction from the ministry for a

number of reasons. One of which is that we want the most beneficial use.

Another of which is that we want to ensure that we are not adding to

greenhouse gas emissions by simply landfilling biosolids.

We are working with regional districts to find beneficial uses. We

are also updating, on a regular basis, our information and data about

the presence of contaminants of concern in biosolids and constantly

updating our standards in that regard.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: I didn’t say that I previously supported the ministry. What I said

was….

I previously agreed with the minister when he was the executive

director of the Sierra Club, when he was writing to the Saanich

Peninsula Wastewater Commission, en­couraging us to maintain a ban

on the land application of biosolids. That’s what I was supporting. It

was the minister, in his former role, with his former belief that we

should not be applying biosolids on the land.

The minister has been responsible for the Ministry of Environment

for the past seven years, and he has been negligent in updating the

Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. In fact, we knew 13 years ago that

the regulation was grossly inadequate. It remains the same

today.

In 2011, we demanded the CRD and the province operate from the

precautionary principle on biosolids. That’s basically what we’re

requesting the Minister of Environment do now, more than a decade later.

Instead, the minister has deployed the opposite approach, failing to

modernize the OMR and failing to require the proper testing of that

material.

He said to my colleague in budget estimates just last week that he

was going to amend it so the director could require sampling. How is it

that we’re not having basic sampling of this waste material?

My question is, again, to the Minister of Environment. Will he

require the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation to be updated before

this place adjourns and goes to another election and we go into another

parliament where this Minister of Environment has failed to protect the

interests of our environment and the citizens of British

Columbia?

Hon. G. Heyman: What I would say to the member, and to all members of this House,

is…. We are constantly updating our information base. We are constantly

updating our regulations. We take the concerns of British Columbians in

communities around the province very seriously. It is difficult to

satisfy everyone.

The fact is, as a society, we produce contaminants. We need to

address them in the best way possible. We need to ensure that we are

protecting all of our communities against climate change and simply

burying the problem.

[10:50 a.m.]

I receive regular reports from staff on their progress with the

Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. We are looking at it. As I

mentioned earlier, we are reviewing the science and searching for more

science on contaminants of emerging concern.

We’ll continue that work. That work will continue today, next

week, and it will continue with governments in future

mandates.

RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL TITLE

AND POTENTIAL

COMPENSATION

J. Rustad: Now that Bill 25 is before the House, this bill sets out an

unprecedented recognition of Aboriginal title underneath private land.

That has never been done before. According to case law, recognition or

alienation of Aboriginal title requires compensation.

My question, quite frankly, is to the Minister of Finance. Since

there is going to be Aboriginal title recognized under private land, and

there is undetermined Aboriginal title right across this province, how

much is the minister putting aside, in the recognition of Aboriginal

title, in all areas across this province that will be alienating private

land?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to my colleague for the question.

Yesterday’s historic recognition of Aboriginal title in Haida

Gwaii was unprecedented. Never before has a bill been introduced to do

what the courts have asked us to do. Never before in our history have we

not responded to a court case but, rather, introduced a bill to

address….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Also, Minister, this bill is in front of the House, so I don’t

think we should be dealing with this in question period.

Member, if you have another question, we’ll take that.

J. Rustad: Hon. Speaker, the issue is not the bill that’s before the House. I

respect your guidance on this. The issue is Aboriginal title being

recognized and the fact that Aboriginal title could exist anywhere

around this province.

The precedent has now been set. This is going to create a

tremendous amount of liability for the province of British Columbia —

for example, in downtown Vancouver or downtown Victoria, anywhere around

the province.

The question around this: with this liability that is now being

created, has the Minister of Finance put aside money in a budget

associated with this, but more importantly, is this NDP government

planning to do this onto taxpayers, or are they going to put that burden

onto the landowners themselves?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this

question.

Yesterday’s introduction of Bill 25 was about the specific request

that we settle a lawsuit in order to recognize Aboriginal title in

British Columbia. There was no commensurate requirement for compensation

sought during that time.

Under treaty, of course, we do have fiscal arrangements that the

governments of Canada and British Columbia enter into and pass, by

legislation at both the federal and provincial level, in which

compensation going forward is the case. Redress is often requested, but

that was not the subject of yesterday’s bill, and that will not be

forthcoming as a consequence of Bill 25.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

E. Sturko: Just like the first leaked health authority memo, the memo from

Island Health tells nurses, “Offer supplies, and ensure they are easily

accessible,” actively promoting drug use within hospitals.

Moreover, acute care nurses who encounter patients using illicit

substances are explicitly instructed to stand by and allow them to

finish. A frustrated nurse highlights the NDP hypocrisy: “We are handing

out supplies, and then we get mad…for smoking in the hospital. We give

them the equipment.”

Why is the Premier distributing crack pipes and nee­dles,

sponsoring drug use inside hospitals instead of ending his disastrous

policy and protecting health care workers?

Hon. A. Dix: What we’re doing is taking specific actions to ensure that

everybody in the hospital is safe and gets a high quality of

care.

I would say this starts with, as well, people who enter the

hospital who have no substance abuse issues. They deserve a high quality

of care. They deserve to have a smoke-free environment. They deserve to

be protected equally. Staff and their interests need to be protected as

well.

[10:55 a.m.]

People who come into the hospital with addiction is­sues….

Of course, when anyone ever comes into the hospital with issues, we need

health care professionals to know what those issues are, so that they

can address those issues.

What we are doing, and what we’ll have in British Columbia, are

clear rules everywhere. The rules are the same in Fort St. John as they

are in Comox, as they are in Vancouver, as they are in Cranbrook, so

that everybody understands what the rules are, that we will continue to

support our staff through actions like the relational security measure

and that people will know, for example, that it is not allowed to smoke

in hospital, not allowed to do those things.

We will be very clear, and it is our absolute intention to

continue to enforce that.

The Speaker: Surrey South, supplemental.

REPORT ON SAFE DRUG SUPPLY

AND DIVERSION TO ILLICIT

MARKET

E. Sturko: Not everyone is getting high-quality care. Not everyone is safe in

the hospital. The NDP have absolutely handcuffed the ability to deal

with these problems through decriminalization.

Regardless of this minister saying that it’s not allowed, it is

happening. The NDP’s failed decriminalization policy in our hospitals

has been an unmitigated disaster, stripping police of their ability to

do anything about the chaos. The Premier has turned hospitals and

pharmacies into drug-dealing hot spots, and he has placed communities at

risk.

Yesterday I raised that the NDP is concealing a secret report by

Dr. Jonathan Caulkins. Additional information that we’ve received says

that that report looks at the NDP’s legalization of hard drugs in

British Columbia.

Will the Premier table Dr. Caulkins’s report today and end his

failed experiment of taxpayer-funded drug trafficking and

decriminalization?

Hon. A. Dix: Yesterday, numerous opposition members asserted that the Premier

had commissioned such a report. He hadn’t. Presumably, they know that he

hadn’t, because the question is framed differently today.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Minister will continue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. The minister has the floor.

Minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: The members of the House will know that Dr. Bonnie Henry, the

provincial health officer, under her authority, is doing a review of

these policies. A report was issued on February 1. She said very

publicly at that time that there’d be a follow-up report in the next

four or five months.

As part of that work, she commissioned Dr. Caulkins to do a paper

on issues related to the economics of safe supply, which seems like a

normal thing to do.

Dr. Caulkins — I wasn’t familiar with this work or this

commissioning but do know…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: …that Dr. Henry commissioned this re­port. Her report will

be coming out, it’s our expectation, in May or June. There will be

appendices to that report, and this research paper will be provided as

part of that.

She’s seeking this work because Dr. Henry reaches out to different

opinions and wants different opinions on the subject to support her work

that she does on behalf of the people of British Columbia, what you’d

expect her to do. That’s why the report was commissioned. It will be

made public at the time of Dr. Henry’s next report to the public on this

issue.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND COMMUNITY SAFETY

ISSUES

T. Wat: The NDP MLA for Richmond-Queensborough boasted just two weeks ago,

“Decriminalization works,” but that’s not true. This NDP’s drug

experiment has un­leashed crime, chaos and disorder. Police are

now powerless because of this NDP legalized drug use in hospitals, in

parks and on beaches.

Residents of Richmond reject the NDP’s reckless drug consumption

sites and decriminalization policy.

Why won’t the Premier end his failed experiment and accept B.C.

United’s plan to protect our community?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Look, I think what all British Columbians agree on is that we need

to move away from criminalizing people who are struggling with

addictions. This is particularly critical at this time, given the

devastating impacts of the toxic drug crisis, and decriminalization is a

tool that helps us achieve that.

It is a tool that we put in place in concert with partners in law

enforcement and health care and our municipal partners to achieve that

end. It is a tool that had support from all members of this House,

including the member who raised the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members will wait for their turn.

Minister….

Members. Members will come to order.

Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, wait for your turn.

The minister will continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: It is troubling to see members say one thing one day and another

thing another day when it comes to this issue.

In a circumstance where we lost seven British Colum­bians

yesterday, we will lose seven British Columbians today, and we will lose

seven tomorrow, and that is because every single jurisdiction across the

country, across the continent is dealing with a poisoned….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it’s not very smart to interrupt others,

please.

Member, it’s not funny either. Member for Skeena.

Next question. The minister will complete….

Hon. J. Whiteside: I will continue, potentially without interruption.

The question was asked about decriminalization. I

un­derstand that British Columbians want us both to shift away

from criminalizing people who are struggling with addictions who need to

be connected to care and, at the same time, of course, they don’t want

to give up their public spaces in that process.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We are taking action to ensure that we work with our policing

partners so that they have the tools that they need and so that we work

with our health care system to ensure that British Columbians have

access to the care that they need.

That is why we have a record expansion of treatment services

across the province. That is why we have introduced legislation around

public use. That’s work that we will continue to do with our

partners…

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …to ensure that in the context of this public health emergency, we

protect British Columbians.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The minister will take her seat.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND GOVERNMENT ACTION ON

ISSUES

P. Milobar: I guess I will have to combine two questions into one after that

four-minute non-answer.

Let’s be clear. This government applied to the federal government

for a decriminalization certificate before the committee had even been

struck to talk about decriminalization. It was also part of

their….

Now, I know this government has a problem following through on

campaign promises, but decrim was actually in their 2020 campaign as

well about fast-tracking decriminalization. This is all on the Premier

and this government. Every single day the evidence keeps mounting and

mounting about their failed decriminalization policies that they’ve put

in place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let’s….

P. Milobar: They have not enacted the other things that they should have

around safeguards, around making sure that health care workers felt

safe, around making sure that people that share a two- or a four-bed

ward in a hospital room aren’t having to endure meth, crack and fentanyl

being smoked in their room or supplies being forced to be given out by

health care professionals or having to watch addicts inject themselves

with their own intravenous systems based on guidance by health care

professionals on memos provided by health authorities.

We now have 205 health authorities providing that guidance, yet

the minister wants to pretend it’s not actually happening. It is

absolutely a failure in every single way.

Let’s look at these last few weeks in this session. The Land Act.

B.C. United….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. All members. Members.

P. Milobar: The Government House Leader seems a little offended.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Calm down.

Member, continue.

[11:05 a.m.]

P. Milobar: B.C. United puts pressure on the government about the Land Act.

Poof! It magically disappears.

B.C. United is putting pressure on Bill 12. Just yesterday the

Attorney General and Premier were adamant that Bill 12 was going to keep

moving forward. Today, poof! It magically disappears.

The Speaker: Question.

P. Milobar: Well, B.C. United has been putting pressure on this government to

end decriminalization today. If they won’t end it today, will they at

least be consistent and end it tomorrow?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Speaking of pressure, first the Leader of the Opposition supports

our initiatives to ensure their safety in Surrey, for Surrey police.

Then the B.C. Conservatives come along and change the

position.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh no, no. They were happy to talk about pressure a moment

ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order now, and the House Leader will conclude

his remarks.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I will conclude my remarks by saying this. The members are talking

about pressure. We clearly know where the pressure is coming for

them.

Every single day, our priority in this government is to support

British Columbians — support people when they go to the hospital, ensure

that we’re saving people’s lives, because we’re seeing far too many of

our loved ones pass away from this overdose crisis.

It’s important work. We’re committed to making sure it’s happening

in British Columbia. All of my colleagues on this side feel this

pressure every single day, making sure our constituents know that we are

going to continue to support them during these challenging

times.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the B.C. Ombudsperson special

report No. 56, systemic investigation update, Alone: The Prolonged and

Repeated Isolation of Youth in Custody .

Petitions

S. Chant: I have the honour of presenting a petition to the assembly, from

approximately 1,200 people across British Columbia, requesting to amend the

Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act to add an advanced

request for MAiD option to

part 2.1, “Advance directives.”

The signees recognize that this is also being dealt with at the

federal level, but they just want to make sure that the province understands

their concerns in this area.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call third reading on Bill 3, Budget Measures

Implementation Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 19,

Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry

of Education and Child Care.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — BUDGET MEASURES

IMPLEMENTATION ACT,

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024, read a third time

and passed on division.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading of Bill 22, the bubble zone act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS ACT

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

In 2023, we saw an escalation in disruptive protests and

demonstrations occurring in and around our K-to-12 schools. In addition

to interfering with educational activities, this behaviour can be

harmful to the students and staff who need to be at schools. Here we are

talking about staff who have dedicated themselves to creating a safe,

inclusive learning environment, who should be able to enter schools to

do their jobs without being harassed or intimidated by

protesters.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[11:10 a.m.]

We are talking about families of students who should feel safe

accessing the school and know that when they drop off their children for

a day at school, they will be attending a safe, welcoming school without

fear of disruption and potentially harmful protests happening

there.

Here, of course, we are talking about K-to-12 students, children

who range in age from older teens, who may have a range of different

needs and vulnerabilities, down to four- and five-year-old

kindergartners, who are still young and vulnerable and need a safe and

secure school environment. Regardless of their age, all students need to

have a safe, welcoming and accessible learning environment, which is

exactly what K-to-12 schools are meant to be.

Most British Columbians recognize that these protests and

demonstrations at K-to-12 schools, that risk harming children or making

them feel unwelcome in their own schools, are wrong. Making staff feel

intimidated and harassed is wrong. Impeding access to education is

wrong.

The proposed Safe Access to Schools Act will make it clear to

everyone that this behaviour cannot continue in and around K-to-12

schools. Students, parents or guardians and staff are entitled to access

schools without having to face protests and demonstrations. No one

should be scared to go to a school. This bill aims to preserve safe,

unimpeded access to learning environments for students and staff and to

safeguard their health, safety and well-being.

The proposed legislation would give the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to establish access zones at

schools if necessary to protect the well-being of students and staff and

to preserve safe, unimpeded access to schools. In most cases, these

access zones will cover the school, the land on which the school is

located and a 20-metre buffer zone around the perimeter.

With an access zone, the following behaviour will be prohibited:

impeding access to or egress from the school, disrupting educational

programs and extracurricular school activities, protests trying to

advise or persuade a person to refrain from participating in or

providing an educational program, intimidating someone, or doing or

saying anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a

person’s physical and mental safety.

These behavioural prohibitions have been designed to address the

harmful and disruptive behaviours that have no place in and around

K-to-12 schools. They make it clear that protests should not happen in

and around schools. This bill is designed to protect students, allowing

them to access schools and receive an education without being subject to

intimidation and harassment by protesters. It also protects staff, who

are instrumental in providing educational programs to those students and

deserve to be protected at their place of work.

Protesters are free to make their views heard in other, more

appropriate places. People accessing schools or pro­viding

education should not be forced to endure the harmful effects of the

protesters’ disruptive behaviour. Protests at school turn vulnerable

children into captive audiences. This behaviour cannot

continue.

To ensure effective protection for students and staff and to

preserve access to education, the bill includes an en­forcement

mechanism for those who contravene the proposed legislation. It will

authorize police officers to make warrantless arrests to stop people

from contravening the act. It will also provide a statutory basis to

apply for injunctive relief to restrain a person from contravening the

proposed legislation.

The bill includes specific exemptions that apply to students and

people working in schools. In general, these exemptions are intended to

ensure that the act does not prohibit behaviour that may ordinarily

occur as part of the delivery of an educational program. Lawful strikes,

lockouts and picketing within the meaning of the Labour Relations Code

are also not prohibited by this proposed legislation.

The prohibitions contained in the bill are content-neutral and do

not prohibit protests and demonstrations only on specific topics or

issues. Access to education is to be preserved, no matter what issue is

motivating the disruptive or harmful behaviour.

To minimize the impacts on rights and freedoms while achieving the

goal of protecting students and staff from harm and disruptions, the

bill does not restrict protests and demonstrations everywhere, but only

in access zones on and around K-to-12 schools, which only come into

effect if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council establishes them, by

regulation.

These access zones are limited in size and are only in effect

during specific times when students and staff are likely to be present

for educational programs and extracurricular school activities. The

proposed legislation would also give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council

the flexibility to adjust the area and effective times for access

zones.

[11:15 a.m.]

Finally, the proposed act will only be in force for a limited

period. It is set to be repealed on July 1, 2026, or earlier by

regulation. This proposed legislation is not necessary to regulate the

conduct of most people, because most people appreciate the importance of

education to our children, and they know that a K-to-12 school is not an

appropriate place to stage disruptive protests.

Ultimately, a small segment of the population has acted in a way

that has disrupted our education system and negatively impacted students

and staff within that system. We can’t let this kind of behaviour

continue. It is for these reasons that we are introducing this

bill.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 22, the Safe Access to Schools

Act.

I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General in introducing

this legislation. I agree with her that the vast majority of people

understand that a school is a place for kids to go to access education,

to be in a caring and nurturing environment and to feel safe. Kids learn

best when they feel safe. They learn when they feel cared for. They

learn when they feel like they don’t have to worry about other things;

they can just focus on their learning.

As a society, I think we can agree to some basic expectations of

the adults in society around what that environment should be for kids.

It should not be a place where adults are having heated debates about

public policy. There are appropriate places for that. There are lots of

appropriate places for heated debates about public policy, but schools

are not one of those places.

As a parent, the last thing I want to be thinking about when I’m

dropping my child off to school is: “Are they going to be subject to

intimidation? Are they going to be subject to somebody yelling at them

about something that they may or may not have any idea what it’s

about?”

Because the only job my kid has going to school is going to learn,

going to be with friends, going to be part of a social fabric, going to

learn, ultimately, how to be in a society, how to care about other

people, how to care about all other people, regardless of that person’s

identity or that person’s race or that person’s gender. School is the

environment where we teach and demonstrate what it means to be in a

society where we respect the inherent human rights of every

person.

In a democratic society, there’s lots and lots of opportunity for

debate on public policy. There are many ways that people can engage in

that — everything from showing up to vote at an election, to

participating in groups, to participating in protests, to working to get

elected themselves. There are so many avenues in a democracy to have

those conversations and those debates about public policy, but a school

ground is not one of those places.

I support this legislation, and I hope that it never has to be

used. I appreciate there being an expiry on it. I hope that as a

society, we can find ways to engage in debates that don’t involve

harassment and intimidation of children or teachers or school

administrators or parents, because that’s an inappropriate place. I just

wanted to rise and speak to this as a parent, as a teacher, as a

legislator.

I will say this. As a teacher, in particular, arriving at school

every morning…. Many, many things on my mind when I would arrive at

school every morning. How are my students doing? Are my lessons ready to

go? Do I have the resources I need? Did my students get enough food this

morning? Are there going to be any issues at the school that I need to

think about? Do we have an assembly? Are the kids ready for that? There

are so many things.

[11:20 a.m.]

What a teacher shouldn’t have to face when they arrive at school

is a heated debate over any kind of public policy, because that’s not

the role that they’re playing. They’re there to deliver curriculum, to

create a safe environment, a nurturing environment and a place where

kids and students can effectively learn not just the curriculum, but

learn how to be good citizens in a democratic society.

That’s a lesson that all of us need to lean into all the time. How

do we be the best citizens? How do we take issues that we might have,

public policy questions that we might have, and approach those in

constructive and effective ways? How do we have conversations that don’t

involve yelling at people, have conversations that don’t involve denying

human rights of people, have conversations that are curious and

inquisitive, instead of starting at a place of: “I am right, and you are

wrong”? That’s not public discourse. That’s not effective public

debate.

I just wanted to put it on the record that I support this

legislation and hope that it doesn’t ever have to be used.

M. Lee: On behalf of the official opposition, I will be the designated

speaker on this bill, if needed. I have listened carefully to the

Attorney General’s comments on second reading here on this

bill.

Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for adding her

perspective, certainly as a parent, about children in school spaces. I

certainly share that concern.

I will say, at the outset of this bill, that we continue to see

the kinds of acts of intimidation that the Attorney General spoke to.

They affect members of the LGBTQ2S+ community, Indigenous peoples,

people of colour, people of religious beliefs and faiths. And children,

of course, of all backgrounds, not just in K to 12, but in community

places, community gathering centres, community centres, places of

worship, gurdwaras, synagogues, mosques, university campuses.

Of course, we saw the extension, in the face of the pandemic, to

the Access to Services (COVID-19) Act. This is a bill and

an act that

I’ll come back to. I appreciate that the act was repealed by design on

July 1, 2023. And this bill also has a similar repeal date under

section

9: July 1, 2026.

The government here, with three and a half weeks left to go in

this legislative process, has brought forward this bill, that they did

refer to in their throne speech, to deal with a specific concern — but

in a time-limited way. Also, as the Attorney General referred to, in

terms of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by regulation, designating and

establishing access zones for a school or a class of schools.

Even as this bill passes, if it does, it’s still over to the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to specify the access zones that we’re

talking about, the 20-metre zone outside the school property.

[11:25 a.m.]

This has a very specific time-limited, by-choice, after-the-fact

application. If the government sees a real need today, it should be

acting today, not giving itself the ability to pick and choose access

zones to follow. If there’s a real need, the government should be

specific and go after that need.

I can have and I certainly will speak to a number of other needs,

I believe. If we’re talking about safe access, safe places for our

children, if that’s what we’re talking about, then I see that certainly

applicable to other places.

That is just my introductory comment about some of the

considerations around this bill. But I know that when the bill was first

introduced on first reading, the immediate reaction from the Leader of

the Official Opposition was that this is just another example of some

sort of performative activity by this government. We saw that on Bill

12. The Premier stood up with the Attorney General, with those who

suffered from social online harms. And we all recognize the impact it

has on our children.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re talking about Bill 22. The appropriate time for Bill

12….

M. Lee: Well, all I’m demonstrating, though, Mr. Chair, is the

performative nature of this government.

Deputy Speaker: One second, Member. Member, this is not a debate with the Chair.

I’m just stating that the rules suggest that you should speak to Bill

22, not Bill 12 at this stage. Thank you.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The performative nature of this bill by this government is endemic

and another example through this Bill 22, because it has a very limited

approach. It says it’s going to deal with safe access to schools yet

doesn’t specify immediate application. It’s about access zones to

schools or classes of schools to come. Well, I think the government

should tell us which schools or class of schools this bill is going to

apply to. Why isn’t it in this statute?

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when we look at the point of

reference, which I would expect this bill is modelled after, the Access

to Services (COVID-19) Act, it spelled it out. It talked about the

classes of protected COVID-19 testing sites, COVID-19 vaccination sites,

protected hospitals, protected schools and, of course, the catch-all

prescribed facilities. I appreciate that there is a general,

by-way-of-regulation ability to designate further facilities for which

that Access to Services Act was being designed and brought forward to

address.

So we do have a past example from this government about a broader,

more effective, immediate application of safe access. I will say again,

by way of introduction, that the access to services to facilities

includes hospitals, schools and other prescribed facilities. This is an

example of a broader application when we’re talking about safe

access.

I understand the specific need to address children not being

intimidated, or their families, when they drop off their children, if

that’s what they do, or if they’re walking their children to school, if

they’re cycling to school, or coming on the bus.

[11:30 a.m.]

Nobody wants to see the places of education and learning being

threatened and undermined in the way that we’ve seen. I will say that

when we talk about an example of that, beyond the scope of this bill,

which is what I’d like to speak to, is that there are other needs that

we’ve seen. One example that comes to mind is Hillel House at

UBC.

Hillel House at UBC has been a safe place for students on campus

at the University of British Columbia. This place has had recent

examples of both trespass coming into the building and protest outside

the building, blocking entrance to the building, blocking access to the

building.

This is a place of learning and support and understanding on the

University of British Columbia campus. This is a place that has been

under pressure, as I have addressed with this government in the past, by

resolutions brought forward to the student society, the AMS, that I was

a former president of. I understand the im­portance of student

voice, but this is a place of intimidation. This is what we’ve seen on

this particular university campus at that particular place.

This is a place, by way of example, that we are talking about our

children, students who come to learn, who come to access their education

and look for the supports of that school facility amongst people of

common faith and beliefs, who are being met with, every day, acts of

intimidation, acts of targeting.

This is a real concern. I know that as we’ve looked at…. There

have been submissions — advocacy, for example, by the Centre for Israel

and Jewish Affairs, as the advocacy agent for the Jewish Federation of

Canada and Jewish Federation of Vancouver.

We have seen the importance of looking at these places to ensure

that we’re protecting ethnocultural facilities and religious

institutions. We’ve seen that in the context, in the continued aftermath

that we continue to address, of the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on

the people of Israel. In that context, we have seen so much damage done

to our province, to our community, to the feeling of safety and security

and acceptance in the communities that we have, including in

Vancouver.

This is the reason why, when we’re talking about a bill that is

talking to the importance of safe access, that the bill should actually

address what we’re seeing today.

I give the example of Hillel House because it is a place that is

under significant pressure. Those students who go to UBC every day are

facing that intimidation and that threat and the feeling that they

aren’t safe. The parents that I hear from of those students look at that

academic institution and are concerned for their children, every day.

This is the reason why, when this government chooses to have a narrow

focus, we need to understand what that focus is.

[11:35 a.m.]

I would encourage the government, in the course of our second

reading debates to follow on this bill, as other members of the

government speak to this bill and as the Attorney General wraps her

comments on this bill, to have the government give us that understanding

about what the particular focuses are for this bill.

I invite them to comment further, because by design, it’s not in

the bill. By design, it’s going to come after the fact. I’m giving just

one example about Hillel House, which should be addressed, because it’s

real.

I would like to understand from the government what exact form of

protest they are looking to address. Because if they’re only focused on

K to 12 and the 20-metre zone, well, right now, under the School Act,

there are provisions. There are provisions under the School Act

currently that speak to some of this.

I admit and would acknowledge that this bill takes it further,

that there is an ability here to use what’s contemplated in the bill in

terms of arrests without warrant and injunctive relief. But we know that

in the School Act itself, under sections 70 and 177….

If we take 177, for example, under the current School Act, we have

provisions that deal with the fact that a person must not disturb or

interrupt the proceedings of a school. “A person who is directed to

leave the land or premises of a school by the principal, vice principal,

director of instruction or person authorized by the board to make that

direction (

a) must immediately leave the land and premises, and (

b) must

not enter on the land and premises….”

A person who contravenes those two subsections I just referred to

commits an offence. A principal, vice principal or director of

instruction of a school or a person authorized by the board may, in

order to restore order on school premises, require adequate assistance

from a peace officer.

This particular framework under

section 177 of the School Act

currently exists, and it currently would address many of what I

understand to be the concerns of this government when we talk about K to

12. We have existing provisions under the School Act that can actually

deal with this.

This is another reason why I say…. I agree with the Leader of

Official Opposition when he calls this just another bill of performative

measures by this government.

We’re talking about jamming in legislation near the end of this

session, dealing with very significant fundamental shifts. We saw that

potential with the Land Act amendments. We saw it with Bill 12, the

health care costs recovery act. We see it with the Legal Professions

Act, Bill 21, still to come. These are examples of fundamental pieces of

legislation that are the broad, sweeping nature of

government.

This particular bill has a particular purpose to it. I’m still

trying to understand what it is, because we have other needs in the

community, and we already have provisions in the School Act that address

many of the concerns that this government says exist in schools, on

school grounds, on the land and premises of schools

themselves.

We’ve also seen, of course…. I’ll comment on this part of it as

well, since I mentioned

section 70 of the School Act.

We have

section 70, which deals with chairs or other members

presiding at meetings of boards. They may expel from the meeting a

person, other than a trustee, who the presiding member considers guilty

of improper conduct. A majority of the trustees present at a meeting of

the board may expel a trustee from the meeting for improper conduct. A

person who disturbs, interrupts or disquiets the proceedings of a

meeting of a board commits an offence.

[11:40 a.m.]

This brings to mind other examples of intimidation and disruption

that we’ve seen in public meetings. We’ve seen this in several

municipalities, including in the Tri-Cities. We have seen disruptive

behaviour, interruptions of council proceedings, acts of intimidation.

These are not safe places.

I understand the importance of freedom of expression. I certainly

support it, and I know all members of this House do. This is the reason

why we have the debate, unless the government brings closure. This is

the reason why we have the opportunity to have the kind of review. This

is the reason why we need to work through these pieces of legislation

and have a clear understanding.

This is another example of what’s happening in municipal town

halls. Councillors are feeling personally threat­ened for their

safety.

When we are talking about safe access…. What about those citizens

who want to participate at town halls and feel threatened, by their

participation, for who they identify as?

I am very concerned about the targeting, the intimidation and the

identification of certain members of our communities. This is the reason

why children are not wearing their school uniforms when they go to

school. They want to hide their identity. Their parents are concerned

about their identity.

This is what our society has come to. This is the reason why, when

we’re talking about…. We will have the opportunity, I appreciate, in

Bill 23, when we’re talking about systemic racism, Islamophobia,

antisemitism in our society….

This government is talking about action plans. We need action now.

We need a plan now. We don’t need mere announcements of particular

educational measures or funding for security.

Again, I appreciate and recognize the importance of those things.

But that’s not a plan. This is not a plan. This bill attempts to address

a particular purpose, which the government needs to be clear about, when

there are so many other needs. There are so many other needs for

children who are not feeling safe in their communities.

This bill, also, does not apply, for example, to religious

institutions. When I go out to the mosque, one of the mosques I’ve been

to, when I’ve been invited, for various gatherings, with members of the

government caucus and other members of the opposition here, is the one

in Delta, on River Road. I know, with great pride, that mosque talks

about the buildup of the school and the learning and instruction

facilities and the classrooms that they continue to build out and

utilize. This is an example of a religious institution and place that is

not covered by this bill.

This is a concern. This is a concern about these places, these

places like that particular mosque or the synagogue in my riding, in

Vancouver-Langara, Temple Sholom, like so many other places of worship —

Catholic churches, where my father taught catechism at St. Anthony of

Padua at 70th and Granville; Saints Peter and Paul at 37th and Cartier

in my riding.

These are other examples where children come on a regular basis,

typically on a Sunday, sometimes on a weekday. I know that at Temple

Sholom, it’s on a Wednesday night as well. They come to learn. This is

the reason why at Temple Sholom, particularly since October 7, there

have been volunteer security officers.

[11:45 a.m.]

I have talked about that. I’ve talked about community leaders

spending their time in the face of this current situation, this war,

helping to keep their own children safe, as they attend religious

studies for their faith.

We have seen, regrettably, those types of acts of intimidation

outside a Jewish community school, at least on two occasions. Police, as

I understand it, were called in to address that.

Thank goodness for the support and the continued service of the

Vancouver police department. I know the Jewish community in Vancouver

continues to be, for example, grateful for that.

But when we are talking about this bill and the opportunity to

create safe places, beyond just the narrow, performative measure of this

bill, with undefined purpose; with school zones and schools to be

defined and identified to follow, not in this bill; with no real

application or effectiveness…. We need action from this government. We

need a bill that will actually effectively deal with the concerns of

parents and children today.

I give these examples of the ways that this Bill 22 falls far

short. These are examples that we’ll need to continue to probe at the

committee stage as well.

I would say that the concern around intimidation that the Attorney

General spoke to…. A bill of this nature has the opportunity to send a

clear signal — a clear signal that our schools, our community centres,

ethnocultural community places, religious institutions of learning for

our children, are not to be targets.

of these places to share his or her viewpoint. It’s more than that. It’s

talking about groups, individuals, who are targeting these places —

places of vulnerability, when it comes to our children — to send a

message of intimidation and threat. It goes to the very heart of what

this government should be addressing, which is the safety of our

children not just in K to 12, not just by the

Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after this bill.

To block access to any of these places is

an act of intimidation.

And for certain racialized communities, we need to walk through that. We

need to understand the focus around certain types of communities in our

province and why there seems to be a disparity in focus, by this

government, on those groups.

I’m not just talking about double standard here. I’m talking about

where there’s immediate action versus when there’s not immediate action.

This is the reason why Bill 22 needs to be carefully examined for what

it is.

As we look at the actual provisions in clause 2 of this bill, just

to give some indication of some of the other areas to probe at committee

stage, and we talk about access being protected….

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[11:50 a.m.]

The question arises, which is important, because of this

subsequent determination by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, whether

that specific access needs to be im­peded in the course of a

protest, which is a time-measured way, versus a particular, continued

activity, by a single individual, impeding, disrupting, protesting or

interfering with access of that space.

Mr. Speaker, seeing you there and noting the hour, I will reserve

my place in the debate and move adjournment of debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Committee of the Whole (Section A), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Committee of Supply (Section C), having reported progress, was

granted leave to sit again.

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — CHILDREN AND FAMILY

DEVELOPMENT STATUTES

AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 19;

R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members.

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 19, Children and Family

Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, to order.

On clause 1.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and staff.

I think we have about a half an hour to get through the bill.

We’ll do our best.

On clause 1, would the minister please provide the House with the

rationale for the changes to

definitions re­moving “statutory” and

replacing it with “director’s” duty, power, and power or duty

agreement?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Just before I answer, I want to take the opportunity to introduce

the folks that are here with me.

I have David Galbraith, who is Deputy Minister of MCFD. Emily

Horton is an assistant deputy minister. Behind me, I have Alex

Stevanovic and Patrick Tucker. I’m grateful for their assistance in this

work and for being here today.

The change that the member has asked about is about broadening the

powers that can come under a

section 6 agreement. This was done

because…. Statutory powers were originally in Bill 38. From connecting

with nations, with Indigenous governing bodies, and hearing from our

partners….

The powers that are of most interest to nations, to IGBs, are

actually those that are held by directors. What we’re doing here is

broadening the powers that can go under a

section 6 to include the

things that have more direct impacts on the lives of children, youth,

families and communities and are the powers the IGBs told us they want

to work together on.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

Could the minister maybe expand a little bit on which IGBs she

heard from and consulted with? What First Nations groups were consulted

before introducing this legislation?

Hon. G. Lore: A couple of things to the member here.

Broader work with nations on various steps and pathways to

jurisdiction helped illuminate some of the limitations of confining

section 6 agreements to statutory powers. There was also a specific

request from the First Nations Leadership Council on this

topic.

We sent 204 letters out to nations. I talked to 27 nations through

11 engagement sessions. In particular, Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw has been

interested in a

section 6 agreement. Through those conversations and

negotiations, it was clear that some of the powers and responsibilities

and authorities that we could put under a

section 6 were not currently

covered and required this expansion and broadening.

[11:20 a.m.]

N. Letnick: Would it be fair to say, then, that this bill is here because of

the input of one First Nation?

Hon. G. Lore: No, that wouldn’t be fair to say. Again, 27 Nations through 11

engagements. The request originated with the First Nations Leadership

Council. We’ve heard broad support in our engagements for this

broadening and expansion of powers under

section 6.

E. Ross: This is a topic I’ve covered over 20 years. I actually proposed

this to my own band, in terms of taking over the responsibility of

children in care. My band council rejected it mainly because of

liability.

At the time, money wasn’t really an issue for us, mainly because

of LNG revenues and forestry revenues. We had the ability to fund it

ourselves if we wanted to do it. But there were so many technicalities

that were involved. We didn’t understand the division of power. And I

assume that’s what we’re talking about here today, in terms of the

information that will be shared with First Nations.

Can I ask a very general question? In terms of the overall funding

of this, is this coming through a transfer payment from Ottawa to B.C.,

or is this entirely coming out of the B.C. budget?

Hon. G. Lore: Bill 38 and these amendments are en­abling. They enable us

to enter into

section 6 and 7 agreements, and amendments we have here

broaden the scope of those.

[11:25 a.m.]

The funding for jurisdiction and the pathways to it are part of a

tripartite agreement. So to the member’s question, the province has a

role, and the federal government has a role in this. We come together

with the IGBs to do this work.

What that funding arrangement looks like is work that’s underway

and active right now. In fact, Thursday of this week, there are

approximately 60 Nations that we’re meeting with in person to engage in

this work. So in this legislation, the amendments are enabling, and the

tripartite work around a funding agreement is active and

underway.

E. Ross: I understand we’re talking about legislation that enables

information-sharing between the Crown and First Nations. Very sensitive

information, which could get legal very quickly if it’s not covered in

legislation here, not only for the Crown but for the First Nation in

question.

So it’s my understanding, then, that there is no transfer payment

coming from Ottawa to the B.C. government, not only for this transfer of

information that we’re talking about in Bill 19, but also overall for

the transfer of powers for the jurisdiction of Aboriginal

children.

I’m just trying to get a feel for what is Ottawa’s role in this

because you can’t deny the Indian Act has a large part to play in this.

For the government of Ottawa to sign off on this, they’ve got to be sure

that nothing’s going to come back to them, whether it be financial or

legal, under their fiduciary duty to First Nations.

When we’re talking about this tripartite agreement, are we really

talking about the provincial government and the federal government

basically chipping in to provide a fund for this exercise for Bill 19,

or is it entirely going to be a federal transfer payment to

B.C.?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: A couple of points of clarification for the member. What we are

talking about here in this broadening of scope is not just about

information-sharing. The expansion of powers that we can put in a

section 6 agreement goes beyond that and could include other powers of a

director, like care planning or safety mitigation. There are a number of

things it could include beyond information-sharing.

This is about decision-making together when nations who are not

exercising full jurisdiction, so still operating under the Child, Family

and Community Service Act, want to be at the table where decisions are

being made about their kids. When it comes to full jurisdiction, those

happen through a coordination agreement. Again, that involves a

tripartite that includes the province, the federal government and the

IGB.

E. Ross: Yeah, I wasn’t talking about jurisdiction per se. I was talking

about the funding — basically, the funding that will come from, or maybe

not come from, the federal government.

The minister mentioned they are in tripartite agree­ments

right now with Ottawa as well as First Nations. So I imagine there’s

some conversation about Ottawa’s role specifically in funding this,

because Ottawa has a fiduciary duty to Aboriginals, regardless of what

B.C. does. Now, whether that’s a delegated authority to B.C., that’s

beside the fact.

All I’m asking for is: in the tripartite agreement negotiation

going on right now, is funding coming from Ottawa part of those

conversations, and if so, to what extent?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: The tripartite agreements are for co­ordination agreements,

and that is about the full exercise of jurisdiction. What’s happening in

this legislation is expanding the scope of

section 6 agreements, which

are under the Declaration Act. Again, that’s operating under our

ministry’s legislation, but expanding the power so that nations can be

at the table when that decision-making is happening.

It’s not in this bill, but to the members’ question, just to

reiterate, that collaborative work around what this is going to look

like, in a tripartite way, is ongoing, including as soon as this

Thursday. And there’s a recognition that both other levels of government

need to be involved for jurisdiction to be a success.

E. Ross: Yes, I understand that, but the question was specific to Ottawa’s

role in terms of financing this initiative.

Regardless of this, there are always transfer payments from Ottawa

to B.C. for Aboriginals in B.C. There have always been. But in this case

here, we’re not too clear on what Ottawa will be doing in terms of their

contribution to Bill 19 and the original act.

Really, where this is heading is…. I’ve seen this before in terms

of transfer payments. There’s always some type of fee administered by

B.C. in these transfer payments. B.C. takes their cut. Let’s just cut to

the chase here. And it’s not just with Children and Families, but there

are other programs that Ottawa actually delegates to B.C. to actually

undertake some services on behalf of First Nations.

The minister talked about this bill not only being info-sharing

but also for the expansion of powers and jurisdictions from First

Nations — First Nations taking on more responsibility, which actually

includes more liability. This is why the question of the funding is so

important. It can’t be bare-bones funding.

If Ottawa is contributing a large portion of the funding here to

B.C. to undertake Bill 19, then it only stands to reason that the First

Nations should get the bulk of that funding, if not 100 percent of that

funding, for each child, just because of liability issues alone. Forget

about management.

The B.C. government, the federal government all know that

liability goes into protecting a child, whether Aboriginal or not. The

B.C. government, the federal government — you’re covered. You’ve got the

taxpayer base to fall back on. First Nations don’t have that, especially

First Nations that don’t have an economic base. Basically, that’s why

I’m so interested in Ottawa’s role in terms of funding.

When we’re talking about this, is it the perspective of the

minister that any funding that comes from Ottawa, at the very least,

flows 100 percent to the First Nations who take on the jurisdiction and

the liability proposed by Bill 19?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Again, this legislation enables us to enter into agreements under

sections 6 and 7 of the Declaration Act. The amendments here today

expand the scope of that so that we’re better able to collaborate on the

powers that truly impact the lives of kids and families.

Nothing in the bill is touching on funding agreements, but those

will be negotiated and will be part of the conversations around

section

6 and

section 7 agreements. That broader work on a funding model for a

full jurisdiction in a tripartite way is, as I said, ongoing and very

active. I can offer the member an update as that funding model work

continues, if that would be something of interest.

A. Olsen: Can the minister share with the House how much, just on average,

the ministry spends per child in care, currently? How much is allocated

per child in care?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: I don’t have that number off the top of my head. We’re happy to

share it.

Some of the context I think is important is that the number that

the member’s looking for is total spending divided by total number of

kids. It doesn’t represent a kid. There’s huge variability because the

system is needs-based, responsive to kids’ needs. It covers things like

supports for the family, including if the child is with extended family,

costs associated with recreation for kids, medical needs, medical

supplies.

There’s massive variation, and that number doesn’t tell us

something about a particular kid. I don’t have it here with me, but it’s

something we can share with the member.

Thank you. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask

leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

EDUCATION AND

CHILD CARE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); K. Greene in the

chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members.

I call Committee of Supply,

Section C, to order. We are

meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates

of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $9,576,781,000

(continued) .

E. Sturko: Good morning to all my colleagues here in the room. Thanks for

your participation again today.

Going back to the $30 million announcement for dyslexia programs,

what evidence-based screening method will be used, and by whom will

these methods be used?

Hon. R. Singh: The early screening will be done by the teachers. We are looking

at tools. We are also talking to the districts who are already doing the

screening and the tools that they are using. What tools the teachers

will be using are to be determined.

The focus here is that every child from kindergarten to grade 3

gets screened early. If they have any literacy or early learning

challenges, they can get the support.

E. Sturko: I’m going to try and roll these next two questions into one, so

bear with me.

Will all the components, then…? I think the minister was saying

that they’re looking at all early learning and literacy components. Does

that include reading, writing and math? Can you talk to me about that

plan?

Knowing that dyslexia is a spectrum of degrees of severity…. It’s

a spectrum of forms, including dyscalculia, dysgraphia and auditory

processing disorder. How will children with these learning disabilities

be screened, will they be screened, and how long will the training be

for the teachers who will be supporting them?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: There’s a difference between literacy screening and a diagnostic

assessment to identify a learning disability. What we are implementing

is literacy screen­ing that can be done in a classroom setting by

a teacher.

As I mentioned earlier, when we identify problems early, we can

catch most kids up so that they don’t need an extended assessment and

they don’t need to seek support outside the public school system. This

will also mean we can do a better job of addressing the needs of

students who do have learning disabilities that require a higher level

of intervention.

E. Sturko: Just for clarification, this early screening program will indicate

whether or not the child may be having issues with literacy but would

require further screening and further diagnosis and testing in order for

them to understand the scope of what the disability is?

Hon. R. Singh: Early intervention is the key to find out what supports a child

would be needing, and this early screening would be done by the

teachers.

[11:25 a.m.]

In most of the scenarios, teachers will have the tools to provide

that support, because early intervention is happening and early

screening is happening. Identifying those gaps early on gives the

teachers the opportunity to give the resources that the child requires,

but if during that early screening process, a teacher recognizes there’s

need for more interventions or diagnosis, the teachers would be

referring the child accordingly.

E. Sturko: Before Budget 2024, the minister announced a ban on the use of

cell phones in classrooms. Would the minister please outline the policy

direction she gave to school districts? How many districts have

implemented this policy, and which ones?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We are working with the school districts to ensure that all

schools have policies in place to restrict cell phone use during

instructional time for the next school year. We all know that there is a

time and place for cell phones, and that includes when they are needed

students to develop lifelong healthy habits with technology and social

media.

We have amended the provincial standard code-of-conduct order.

Districts are now in the process of updating their policies. Over 30

districts already have policies in place, and the order will be in

effect July 1. All districts will submit to the ministry for review

before the start of the next school year.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Minister.

Can the minister please tell the House what part of Budget 2024 is

aimed to implement this new policy?

Hon. R. Singh: As this is a policy change, the districts will be managing this

with their existing budgets.

E. Sturko: Classroom schedules are changing in Surrey due to the failure of

this government to plan ahead regarding school capital, which will have

a direct impact on students with learning disabilities let alone

families with two children and jobs. There are concerns that I’ve

already heard from families where an older child from high school has to

provide care for elders, assists in child care or works a job where they

actually contribute to the financial health of the family.

To the minister, will she stand up and tell the Surrey school

district that they’re not allowed to change the current school

timetable?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We know that Surrey is one of the most fast-growing communities,

and more and more people are making Surrey their home. I have personal

experience with Surrey. I made Surrey my home a number of years ago and

so are many, many new families moving to Surrey.

The district engages with their school community to meet the needs

of the community. The ministry does not dictate to any district on

timetables. The expectation is that they are working with their local

communities and making those decisions.

E. Sturko: The ultimate responsibility for the well-being and education of

students rests with the ministry, rests with the minister. Given the

challenges that I outlined….

I, too, have children in SD36, including a son who will be

attending a school that is supposed to go to staggered starts or even

split shifts. For families that have children both in elementary school

and in high school, it creates an incredible issue, especially when

there’s no bus service available. I find it difficult that….

Yes, of course, school districts are left to have to forge their

own way, but they were put in this difficult decision by an

underinvestment by this government, asking for a specific number of

schools and not getting them.

Now they have no choice. They feel that there is no choice but to

send kids to school either in split shifts or staggered starts, which

will be incredibly disruptive to families not to mention have impacts on

students with disabilities, take away their ability, in some cases, to

participate in extracurricular activities, perhaps impact their

families’ finances if they are contributing financially by working a

part-time job. There are just so many things that can be impacted

here.

Has the ministry looked at this? Is there anything in the budget

to even study the impacts this will have on community members in Surrey?

The reality is that the ultimate responsibility does lie with the

minister here. It’s fine and dandy to say, “Well, you know, the school

district has to make its own decision,” but they are essentially backed

into a corner here, where they feel that this is the only

alternative.

We don’t know what type of negative unintended consequences this

change will have. I would like the minister, please, to explain what

type of studying they’ve done on this issue, what type of review. What

in the budget is dedicated to ensuring that the students who are forced

to do this now and the families that are forced to do this will have the

support that they need? How is the minister who is responsible going to

make sure that this can be done and not harm families?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We know a record number of people have moved to Surrey, and our

government is committed to accelerating expansion projects in Surrey.

Since September 2017, the province has approved nearly $750 million for

projects in Surrey, which will bring nearly 12,400 spaces.

The expectation of the ministry is that every child in every

district, and especially now with what we are seeing with growing

districts, will get quality education and that there are no barriers to

that education. I think this is the intent of the boards of education

also. They are consulting very closely with their community

partners.

Along with the capital project funding, Surrey also gets the

feeding futures funding, which is $8.85 million per year. Also the

student and family affordability fund, which for this year was $1.872

million. So the ministry is working very closely with the district and

looking at their needs and also providing the supports that they

need.

The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. R. Singh: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to

sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.

Copyright © 2024 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.