2009 Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament

HANSARD

The following electronic version is for informational purposes only.

The printed version remains the official version.

official report of

Debates of the

Legislative Assembly

(hansard)

Tuesday, November 17, 2009

Afternoon Sitting

Volume 8, Number 4

CONTENTS

Page

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

BladeRunners youth employment program

J. Kwan

South Okanagan Rehabilitation Centre for Owls

J. Slater

Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers

R. Chouhan

Kamloops Airport expansion

T. Lake

Women's ski jumping at Olympic Games

D. Black

Response to house fire by Macey Finlay-Podner

M. Dalton

Oral Questions

Closing of adolescent mental health unit in Fraser Valley

A. Dix

Hon. K. Falcon

M. Sather

Release of police video of Clayton Willey

B. Simpson

Hon. K. Heed

M. Farnworth

Legal aid funding for Frank Paul inquiry case

J. Kwan

Hon. M. de Jong

L. Krog

Government action on poverty reduction

M. Karagianis

Hon. M. Polak

M. Elmore

Gravel extraction from Fraser River

V. Huntington

Hon. B. Penner

Petitions

L. Popham

G. Coons

S. Fraser

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 18 — Assistance to Shelter Act

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 18 — Assistance to Shelter Act

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 14 — Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

S. Simpson

Hon. R. Coleman

B. Ralston

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 14 — Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General

Hon. M. de Jong

J. Kwan

L. Krog

[ Page 2423 ]

TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2009

The House met at 1:33 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have Mr. Stephen Branch, vice-president of marketing and sales strategy from Ritchie Bros. Please join me to welcome him.

R. Austin: Today we have a number of guests joining us in the gallery from the Langley school district to meet with opposition MLAs to share their concerns about what's going on there.

The first person is Bruce Northway, who is a PAC president. We also have two members from CUPE Local 1851, Axel Hoelterhoff and Dale Trenaman. We also have the president of CUPE 1260, Donna Mason, joined by Kelly Dussin, also from CUPE 1260. We have Susan Fonseca, president of the Langley Teachers Association, and Gail Chaddock-Costello, vice-president of the Langley Teachers Association. Please will all members of the House join me in making them most welcome.

J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and introduce two guests of mine who had the privilege of being in your office today and had the privilege of actually going up to the home of the ink-stained wretches in the press gallery. It was a delightful visit. No harm was done. I have all my fingers and toes.

With us are Shawn O'Hara and his spouse, Elizabeth O'Hara. They bought an auction item at John Stubbs middle school to come and have lunch and meet the good people of the Legislature. I hope that we will be as entertaining as possible.

[1335]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

BLADERUNNERS

YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM

J. Kwan: Our community had a dream 15 years ago, a dream of inclusivity, a dream to give voice to at-risk youth in a tangible way, a dream that is rooted in the belief that everyone should be given the opportunity to maximize their potential. This dream became reality for some 3,000 young people under a program called BladeRunners.

Since 1994 BladeRunners has provided support, helped place participants at construction sites and secured training opportunities for them. GM Place was the first private partner in this program. One of the early participants was Chris Cardinal, who started with the program in 1996. Today he is a Red Seal–certified cement mason with BOSA Construction.

Working together, developers, labour unions and civil society organizations have proven that at-risk youth ages 15 to 30 will succeed if given the opportunity. With an 88 percent job placement rate, 32 percent female participation rate and 66 percent aboriginal participation, BladeRunners is an incredible success story.

In the late 1990s BladeRunners was given the PEPNet award in Washington D.C., for excellence in youth employment programs. Today BladeRunners is sought after by cities like New Orleans, Calgary and Toronto as a model for community economic development.

I would like to recognize the founders of the program — people like Jim Green, who conceptualized it, and Garry Jobin, who has been a tireless advocate for young people in the Downtown Eastside. Garry has vouched for the participants in court, he has shown up at their doorsteps to make sure they get to work on time, and his cell phone is on 24 hours a day.

Recognition is also in order for all the partners, job coordinators and the BladeRunners who went through the apprenticeship and got their trades training. I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in thanking them for their hard work, dedication and commitment and for the wonderful success of the program over the last 15 years and, hopefully, many more years to come.

SOUTH OKANAGAN

REHABILITATION CENTRE FOR OWLS

J. Slater: I am fortunate to live in and represent a very unique area. The Okanagan and Similkameen along with the Thompson valleys are home to 14 of the 15 owls that are found in British Columbia, which can be seen at various times throughout the year.

SORCO, the South Okanagan Rehabilitation Centre for Owls, is a non-profit society whose mandate is conservation through rehabilitation and education, for orphaned birds of prey. Ken Fujino is the centre's facility manager, along with a volunteer board of directors whose purpose is to treat and care for injured and orphaned birds.

These birds are also known as raptors. Some examples are owls, hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons and osprey. Once the birds are capable, they are released back into the wild, and 98 percent of all orphaned chicks that are brought into the centre have been released.

Two great horned owl fledglings have been nursed since February 2009 and were recently set free, one in Kelowna and one in Naramata. Several species of birds that have been restored to health at the centre are red-listed, which means they are facing global extinction.

British Columbia's only endangered owl, the burrowing owl, is found in the Okanagan grasslands. Not only does

[ Page 2424 ]

the well-known Burrowing Owl Winery pay tribute to its distinctive bird by naming their winery after it; the owner, Jim Wyse, has volunteered his time and skills to assist in making habitats for these endangered birds.

As mentioned before, SORCO is a non-profit society that has been operating since 1987. Like any other society through the province, most of the work is done by volunteers who struggle with funding their organization and activities. Unfortunately, SORCO is not a zoo, and visitors are not able to drop in. However, they do visit schools and various organizations regularly as part of the society's educational program. They do have an adopt-an-owl program and will be looking for additional members and fundraising opportunities.

I encourage everybody to go to www.sorco.org to learn more.

RITCHIE BROS. AUCTIONEERS

R. Chouhan: Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers is one company that does not need much introduction. Established in 1958, it held its first auction sale in the Boy Scouts hall in Kelowna. From a very humble start, Ritchie Bros. has become the world's largest auctioneer.

[1340]

Today Ritchie Bros. has over 450,000 customers in over 200 countries. In 2008 its gross auction proceeds totalled $3.57 billion American. Now it is expanding its base to China and India, a true success story.

On October 29 at the grand opening of its brand-new global headquarters in Burnaby-Edmonds, I had the privilege to meet with Mr. Dave Ritchie, the only one of the three founding brothers still actively involved in the company. Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Bob Armstrong, the chief operating officer, gave me the tour of their beautiful and environmentally friendly headquarters.

The management has taken every possible step to make the workplace comfortable and enjoyable for its 312 employees. Mr. Armstrong told me that one of the company's objectives is to empower its employees and address environmental issues. Ritchie Bros. has proved to be a very responsible corporate citizen. I hope Mr. Stephen Branch, whom I introduced earlier, has enjoyed his trip to the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I wish Ritchie Bros. every success and a very bright future.

KAMLOOPS AIRPORT EXPANSION

T. Lake: I rise today to speak about a tremendous success story in the Kamloops-Thompson region that began over five years ago and is one of the keys to the economic success of the region. The opening of the newly expanded Kamloops Airport at Fulton Field was held a few weeks ago, and it marks a new era in connectivity.

A longer runway allows non-stop flights to all parts of North America, facilitating business travel, helping families and friends see each other more often. It creates a safer and more efficient provincial wildfire control centre. In fact, a record 765 aircraft movements were logged at the Kamloops Airport in a 24-hour period as crews battled wildfires throughout B.C.

A larger terminal now greets historic volumes of passengers who are treated to building accents and beautiful art that reflect the culture and history of the Shuswap people. Double-digit increases in passengers put Kamloops Airport in very exclusive company as one of the few growing air terminals in Canada.

Visitors from around the world can now fly into Kamloops to ski at the renowned Sun Peaks Resort, home to the Austrian men's downhill ski team, or to golf at Canada's best course at Tobiano. Residents can connect to cities and resorts the world over using the three airlines that now serve the airport.

Fulton Field was named after wing commander John "Moose" Fulton, awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his brave bomber missions that claimed his life in 1942. I think the Moose would be proud of the little airfield that has grown to be such an integral part of the economic and social well-being of his hometown.

The Coquihalla Highway opened up the Kamloops region in the 1980s, and now the expansion of Kamloops Airport at Fulton Field provides the next level in safe and efficient connectivity to the Thompson valleys. I hope the House will join me in congratulating the Kamloops Airport Authority Society and its president, city councillor John O'Fee, for having the vision and determination to complete this tremendous project.

WOMEN'S SKI JUMPING

AT OLYMPIC GAMES

D. Black: The 2010 Olympic Games present an opportunity for us to showcase British Columbia to the world. Our province and Canada will be presented to the entire world audience through the international media. Unfortunately, the image of the Vancouver games is being tarnished by gender discrimination.

I was dismayed last week to see that women ski jumpers have once again been denied the opportunity to compete on an equal footing with men. Ski-jumping is the only winter Olympic event that does not include a competition for women. Even though Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that prohibits gender discrimination, the female ski jumpers have been told

[ Page 2425 ]

that our courts have no authority to ensure they are able to participate in the Olympic Games being held in B.C. and funded by Canadian taxes.

[1345]

One of the stated missions in the Olympic charter is "to encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality for men and women." Sadly, for women ski jumpers, these words are meaningless and ring hollow.

Over 130 women from 16 countries are registered as international ski-jump competitors, and hundreds more compete in local and national competitions. However, their achievements and the hard work they've put into developing their sport are not being recognized. It's actually unbelievable that these young women are being so blatantly discriminated against in our country.

As a B.C. MLA, I am deeply ashamed that such a public display of discrimination against women will take place in our province in a few months. I simply cannot understand how it's possible that the International Olympic Committee is above Canadian law and that neither our federal nor provincial governments can ensure women's equality in sport.

It's sad that the 2010 Olympics will go down in infamy as the last Olympic Games in history to discriminate against women.

RESPONSE TO HOUSE FIRE

BY MACEY FINLAY-PODNER

M. Dalton: I would just like to take a moment to recognize the courage of a young British Columbian who last night saved the lives of her entire family in a fire which burned down their home.

Macey Finlay-Podner is only nine years old. A fire had begun to spread in their Mission home as a result of an overturned candle used during a power outage. When she woke up to the crackling sound of the fire, she slung her two-year-old brother over her shoulder and carried him safely outside. She then ran back in, yelling and waking up her family, who escaped with only the clothes they were wearing.

I talked to a Mission fire captain on the phone today, and he acknowledged that the house was burned down when the fire department arrived. The family would have perished had Macey not taken the action that she did. She told the fire chief that she had been learning about fire safety in her school.

I have talked to the Solicitor General, and we will be presenting this wonderful little Missionite a certificate for her vigilance and extremely heroic action.

Would the House join me in applauding this young girl and wishing her family the best as they recover from their difficult situation that could have easily been a total tragedy.

Oral Questions

CLOSING OF ADOLESCENT MENTAL

HEALTH UNIT IN FRASER VALLEY

A. Dix: The Fraser Health Authority will be closing its adolescent psychiatric unit in Abbotsford on November 21, transferring existing patients to Surrey's existing beds and leaving much of the Fraser Valley without a critical health service. The purpose is to save $1.1 million, though the excuse is a staff shortage. The Fraser Health Authority just opened the unit before the election, and many youth and families served by the unit are distraught by its closure.

Can the Minister of Health tell this House on the basis of what medical evidence did he take the decision to close 38 percent of adolescent psychiatric beds in the Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member is right to point out that there were significant staff challenges there. Only two of the six beds were actually operational. They were having a very difficult time bringing in the kind of staff necessary. Rather than operate at that low level of capacity, what they have done is merged that unit with the Surrey Memorial adolescent psychiatric unit to look after all the patients across the region.

I realize it is not a perfect solution, but given the difficulties and challenges that Fraser Health had in trying to properly staff the unit, it was the appropriate decision given the fact that there are not unlimited funds available.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

A. Dix: What they're doing is leaving adolescents in need of acute care mental health services in the Fraser Valley to wait. That's what they're doing. This isn't innovation in health care. They're doing it to save $1.1 million. That's according to the Fraser Health Authority.

The minister doesn't have to believe me. Here's what Derryck Smith, former president of the BCMA, former head of psychiatry at Children's Hospital, professor of psychiatry at UBC, says: "This is a really unacceptable situation. This unit just opened. Teens will continue to be underserved here. Having young teens admitted to adult units simply does not work. It is often a dangerous situation for kids. The recruitment problem is a sham. I've never seen any evidence of a serious attempt to recruit doctors here."

[1350]

Does the minister think it's acceptable, contrary to all the evidence, to be placing children and youth in adult psychiatric beds because of the fiasco in the Fraser Health Authority's budget?

Hon. K. Falcon: Again, here we have this member talking about fiascos. This is the same member, of

[ Page 2426 ]

course, that opposed the construction of the brand-new $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre that we built.

The issue is actually pretty straightforward. Only two of the six beds have actually been in use. That is a 30 percent capacity. They've had a real challenge in hiring the specialized youth and child psychiatry officials to be able to staff the unit.

What they have done in the interim is invest $400,000 to enhance the local adolescent crisis response program and develop an adolescent day treatment program locally. Now, those that require in-patient bed services will be utilizing, as I mentioned earlier, the ten-bed adolescent psychiatric unit at Surrey Memorial Hospital. That is ensuring that they are maximizing the dollars and the services to patients.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental.

A. Dix: Here's what they said before the election: "The adolescent psychiatric unit is of major significance, because the only other one in the region is in Surrey and is usually full. Right now if a teen in the Fraser Valley needs in-patient care, there's usually a long wait, and they often, in the end, end up on an adult unit."

That's what they said before the election when they were doing press releases, when they were announcing the hospital and opening the hospital that was built at 300 beds that's currently operating at 236 beds. That's what they said before the election.

This is risky for youth. It's risky for health care. Can the minister explain to the community, to the families of the patients and to the public why it's abandoning its election pledges to adolescents in need of care in the Fraser Health Authority?

Hon. K. Falcon: It's always interesting to hear the member opposite lecture government about the shortage of qualified medical professionals in our health system. As the member would well know…. In fact, he was chief of staff to the NDP government at the time that actually did not add a single…

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute.

…new training space for doctors or nurses at any time in the 1990s for the entire decade — not one. So what does that mean? All the listening audience and those that are watching television will know that to train medical professionals, especially doctors, takes up to seven or eight years and sometimes longer.

What we have done is doubled the number of training spaces for doctors, doubled the number of training spaces for nurses. Over 15,000 new nurses have been trained and educated. That is why I won't take any criticism from that former chief of staff of an NDP government that cut spaces for professionals.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Member.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

M. Sather: Well, here's what's a fiasco. The minister wants to talk about a fiasco. It's opening a bunch of new beds, opening a new hospital and then less than a year later closing them. That's a fiasco for you.

Now, the minister will know that adolescent mental health services are shared between his ministry and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. There's also a joint committee that deals with these issues. Can the minister tell this House: did that committee approve of his decision to close these beds?

Hon. K. Falcon: I've been trying to explain to the members opposite that over the next three years, in spite of the fact that there will be a 20 percent budget increase for the health care authorities, including Fraser Health — 20 percent — there are still pressures within the system. What we have asked….

[1355]

Interjections.

Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you know, Members, you can either listen to the answer or not listen. But if you're going to yell and interrupt me, then I don't get to answer the question.

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: I'm trying to answer the question, Member. You'd think the members might actually listen to the answer. I know they don't like the answer, but they have to listen to the answer.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second.

Continue, Minister.

Hon. K. Falcon: I've been very upfront with the members that in spite of a record 20 percent increase in the budgets, there are still pressures. When there are pressures in the system that require the system to say we need more than a 20 percent increase, we ask them to do better with the dollars they have. So when they have a psychiatric….

[ Page 2427 ]

Interjection.

Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute.

When only two of the six beds available at the Abbotsford Regional Hospital are being utilized, when they know there is a real challenge in spite of recruiting internationally and nationally for child youth psychologists, then it actually makes sense to ensure that those patients can be moved to the ten-bed unit at Surrey Memorial while they add new services locally to deal with them on an out-patient basis.

Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental.

M. Sather: Well, the Fraser Valley is getting shafted by this minister. First he closed addiction services for youth, and now he closes psychiatric services for youth. He has this false premise about lack of recruitment when the doctor, the UBC psychiatry professor who I wager knows a lot more about psychiatric services than the minister does, says he's seen no effort whatsoever to recruit for that hospital.

A year ago Fraser Health was emphasizing how critical this adolescent psychiatric unit was. It described the unit as significant. It was one of only two in the Lower Mainland. Without it, youth are left without any help or they go to adult services, which is also dangerous for them.

Instead of defending a program closure that's based on a false premise, will the minister listen to clinical experts and reconsider this bad decision?

Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite talks about how hard done his area is. I certainly didn't hear those comments when they tripled the emergency department at Ridge Meadows Hospital. I didn't hear any criticisms from the member. Certainly, I've heard no criticisms now that there's a new Pitt River Bridge, a seven-lane Pitt River Bridge and a new Golden Ears Bridge, which allows connections between the new $355 million Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre. No — suspiciously quiet on those issues. I find that interesting.

The fact of the matter is, you know, that these members, in a $15 billion health system, like to run around and see if they can find something here or there to try and suggest to the public that there are cuts when there are increases. The fact of the matter is a tripled emergency department in that member's hospital, right in that member's riding. The fact of the matter is a new $355 million Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Care Centre, the first hospital in British Columbia in 35 years, built by this government.

RELEASE OF POLICE VIDEO

OF CLAYTON WILLEY

B. Simpson: On July 21, 2003, Clay Willey was apprehended by the Prince George RCMP, and he died while in police custody. A coroner's inquest into his death revealed that Mr. Willey was hog-tied, dropped from a height onto his face and chest and tasered several times by police while he was bound. There are three different video files of this incident, and concerns were raised yesterday that key moments have been edited out of those videos.

Will the Solicitor General commit today to release the full unedited versions of these videos to the public?

Hon. K. Heed: This is a very, very tragic event, a tragedy for the family to view the video and relive what Mr. Willey experienced during that time. It's also tragic for the police officers, because nobody wants an event to conclude that particular way.

[1400]

I'm advised that the head of the RCMP for British Columbia has reached out to the native leaders. I am advised that they have arranged to meet with the family on November 30 to discuss the incident, to view the video that's available and determine what the next steps are. This is, in my view, an appropriate course of action to ensure that the family's wishes are adhered to.

B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, 6½ years after the incident, E division has finally conceded to sit down with the family, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to review the entire file.

I spoke with one of the family members today, and she said they don't need to see the video again. The family already has that embedded in their minds. What they want is for the public to see the video, and they see no reason to wait. The family wants the video released to the public in its full, unedited fashion and do not need to wait till the end of the month to have that happen.

Will the Solicitor General commit today to adhere to the family's wishes and have that video released to the public?

Hon. K. Heed: Again, this is a very, very tragic and delicate event that has taken place — circumstances that have to be dealt with in an orderly fashion. I believe that the responsible thing and the respectful thing is that the RCMP sit down with the family. They've arranged a date, I'm advised, of November 30 to discuss this unfortunate incident, to review the circumstances surrounding it, to review the video and work with the family to determine what the next steps are.

M. Farnworth: This tragedy is something that has happened too many times in British Columbia and that has left the public too often with questions that are unanswered. One of the things that is clear is that the public must have confidence in investigations that have taken place and in the transparency of investigations, and that all the information is on the table.

[ Page 2428 ]

My question is to the Solicitor General. He stood in this House and said he wants to respect the family's wishes. Well, the family's wishes are clear. They want to see that video released so the public understands what happened. Will he commit to make sure that that is done?

Hon. K. Heed: We truly believe in transparent and accountable processes, but I can tell you that in this very, very unfortunate set of circumstances we want to work with the family. We want to ensure that the family is very well aware of what the circumstances were that have taken place surrounding this unfortunate incident, what the video does show and, again, work with the family on next steps to ensure, truly, the family wants this video released, as we move forward.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Farnworth: The family believes it's in the public interest. The public has seen too many of these situations take place in this province. The public wants to know that all the information is on the table during investigations and that transparency is one of the first and foremost priorities.

So my question is to the Solicitor General again. The family believes it's in the public interest for the video to be made public. Will the Solicitor General commit and ensure that those wishes in fact take place and that that video is released to the public?

[1405]

Hon. K. Heed: We need to respect the family wishes here. I am advised that the RCMP is sitting down with the family on November 30 to determine what the best, most respectful course of action is in regards to these unfortunate circumstances.

After November 30 I'm sure we'll have a clearer direction on where we want to go with this particular video, based on what the family's wishes are, and that the privacy concerns have been met, any legal concerns have been met and investigative concerns.

LEGAL AID FUNDING FOR

FRANK PAUL INQUIRY CASE

J. Kwan: Well, the family has spoken on that case. Here's another family that's calling on the government to act. The opposition has learned that yesterday the government has withdrawn funding for legal representation of the family of Frank Paul and the First Nations Leadership Council of B.C. in the government's ongoing legal challenge of the Frank Paul inquiry.

Can the Attorney General explain to this House: why is this government going back on its commitment to the family of Frank Paul?

Hon. M. de Jong: I want to assure the member and all members of the House that the government takes this matter and these matters very seriously, has endeavoured to ensure that there is a process in place, that the interests of all parties are properly respected and will continue to take that approach to what has also been a very tragic episode.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

J. Kwan: The Attorney General didn't answer my question. Legal representation for the Frank Paul family and the First Nations Leadership Council at this juncture of the Frank Paul inquiry is essential to getting at the truth and essential to finding out what happened in the death of Frank Paul.

It has been more than ten years. Why is this government trying to stop the family from accessing justice, and why is this government trying to stop the family from finally getting closure in the death of Frank Paul?

Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, that's not the case. At every step along the way, members of the House will know that the government has endeavoured to ensure that there is an opportunity to fully participate, that the facts that led to these tragic circumstances are before those adjudicating them and before the public. That continues to be the approach that the government intends to take.

L. Krog: The cost to allow this family to continue to be represented in this most awful of circumstances is very small in comparison to this budget. So I'm asking the Attorney General: will he today agree to restore the funding so that the Frank Paul family and the B.C. leadership council can be represented?

Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know that at every step along the way we have endeavoured to ensure that there is a means by which the information relating to what has taken place is made available, that there is meaningful participation. That continues to be the principle that will guide us as we move forward on this matter.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

L. Krog: It's a very simple request. It's a very simple question. It's a yes-or-no answer. Can the Attorney General do the right thing today and agree to continue to provide the funding so that this family — in one of the most well-known and notorious cases in this province's history — might get the representation they deserve.

Hon. M. de Jong: The member knows that the government hasn't been in any way reluctant in the past to ensure that there is meaningful participation and a

[ Page 2429 ]

meaningful opportunity for people to participate in the determination of what took place in these tragic circumstances. That has been the guiding principle in the past and will be the guiding principle going forward.

GOVERNMENT ACTION

ON POVERTY REDUCTION

M. Karagianis: Food Banks Canada today released its HungerCount 2009 . It shows that once again a record number of British Columbians were relying on food banks here in this province. In March, during the count, almost 90,000 people relied on food banks for assistance. More than 30 percent of those people were children. Yet this government refuses to follow the lead of provinces like Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland, which are all implementing poverty reduction strategies.

[1410]

My question today is to the Minister of Children and Families. How many children and families have to deal with hunger in this province before the government will institute a poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, after reviewing the report, we're aware that not only is British Columbia facing challenges due to this economic downturn and the resulting loss of jobs that impact families, but in fact, if you take a look at our neighbouring province of Alberta, they have seen an increase of 61 percent in usage of food banks compared to British Columbia's 15 percent.

We recognize, certainly, that there are challenges out there for families, and our ministry, along with the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, continues to monitor caseloads very carefully and respond accordingly as we see those needs arise.

Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental.

M. Karagianis: I'm actually not talking about Alberta. I'm talking about British Columbia and what exists here. More than 27,000 children relied on food banks to fill their bellies in the month of March. Under this government, we've had the highest rate of child poverty for six years in a row, and now, this year, we have record-breaking numbers of families looking to food banks to meet their needs.

The New Democrat government in Manitoba, Liberal governments in Quebec and Ontario, a Conservative government in Newfoundland…. Provinces of all political stripes are taking concrete action to reduce poverty. Again to the Minister of Children and Families: when will this government commit that British Columbia will implement a poverty reduction strategy?

Hon. M. Polak: Well, I am very pleased to report to this House about the most recent successes we've had in reducing child poverty. One of these comes from one of the most recent reports — September 10, 2009, the market basket measure report on low income in Canada. It reports that not only have we seen a 41 percent decline in overall poverty since 2000, but in the single year of 2006 to 2007 that rate dropped by 18 percent.

M. Elmore: Despite this most recent statistic, six years in a row British Columbia has had the highest rates of child poverty, and we continue, despite those statistics….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat.

Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Continue, Member.

M. Elmore: Despite that statistic, B.C. remains to have the highest level of child poverty. That's the reality in B.C. The minimum wage has remained stagnant for eight years, social assistance hasn't kept pace with increasing costs and 10,000 households are waiting for affordable housing.

This food bank report shows the number of people using food banks in this province has jumped by 15 percent in just one year: 27,000 children in the one month of March relying on food banks. My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Will this government commit to implementing a poverty reduction strategy today?

Hon. M. Polak: As a result of a number of initiatives that we've taken, we've seen those rates go down. I can talk about a couple. In 2007 we raised the rates across the board for all clients of social assistance, giving them some of the highest rates in all of Canada. We've also budgeted an additional $160 million this year for what we anticipate in caseload increases.

It's important for the members, if they really want to tackle child poverty, to look at the numbers. When we compare to other provinces — and they love to trot out "last place in Canada" — we're talking about a 0.1 percent difference.

[1415]

The reality is that in terms of child poverty, using the most recent report on the market basket measure, we have seen a drop from '06….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat.

Members.

[ Page 2430 ]

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides of the House, please.

Continue, Minister.

GRAVEL EXTRACTION

FROM FRASER RIVER

V. Huntington: Last week emergency management B.C. announced that the province will proceed with gravel extraction along unspecified portions of the lower Fraser River from January to March 2010. The province has insisted that this is all about public safety and reducing the flood risk. However, a former regional director with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that there is a general lack of information that demonstrates that gravel removal has reduced or will reduce flood hazard.

Similarly, the federal environment commissioner said in a report earlier this year that engineering and scientific studies concluded there was no reduction in the flood profile after gravel removal and that gravel removal would not significantly affect the potential for flooding.

My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. What scientific studies has his ministry used or conducted to justify the removal of gravel for flood protection measures?

Interjection.

Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for the intervention from the member for Delta North.

The B.C. government is committed to flood protection, and certainly, given the recent weather events, the last 72 hours, we can see that our investments are paying dividends. It's important that we continue to maintain our flood protection programs in British Columbia but that we do it in a balanced way.

In the 1990s we know that the other party did put a moratorium on gravel removal and walked away from a federal-provincial funding program for flood protection in the province. Our government ran on a commitment to restore our protection programs and to return to a well-managed, environmentally sustainable and balanced gravel removal program in order to advance flood protection. That has been our commitment, and that has been what we've delivered.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

L. Popham: I rise to present a petition. I present the House with a petition signed by hundreds of people opposing the HST.

G. Coons: I'd like to seek leave to introduce a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

G. Coons: I present the House with a petition signed by hundreds of people opposing the HST and wanting to scrap the implementation.

S. Fraser: I also would like to present a petition.

Mr. Speaker: Proceed.

S. Fraser: I present the House with petitions signed by hundreds of people from Alberni–Pacific Rim and Parksville-Qualicum opposing the HST.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply, for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General; and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act.

[1420]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 18 — ASSISTANCE TO SHELTER ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 18; L. Reid in the chair.

The committee met at 2:24 p.m.

section 1.

S. Simpson: Could the minister describe for us who might constitute a "community representative"?

[1425]

Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, just before we start, to my left is Cheryl May, who's the manager of housing policy for the ministry, and Molly Harrington is to my right. Molly is the assistant deputy minister of policy and research.

The community representative is a person that is responsible for making the call with regards to extreme weather alerts with regards to opening additional shelter.

[ Page 2431 ]

For instance, in Victoria that is a contractor with the Cool Aid Society.

S. Simpson: Again, maybe just a little bit of elaboration on a community representative. So could the minister tell us what kind of organizations might a representative come from? Are there a variety of places that might identify a community representative? Who might they be? How does that designation happen? Is it people who are representative of some particular organizations?

I'm just trying to get a clearer sense of, when it's a community representative, who it might specifically be in different communities. Vancouver is one place. It's a big city. There are lots of options. In smaller communities it may mean something entirely different.

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm happy to give the member the entire list after the debate today, but I'll give him some examples. For instance, in Abbotsford it is the responsibility of Dave Murray, the Abbotsford Community Services food bank, who sits on a committee within that community.

There's a committee within every community. It includes law enforcement, service providers and shelter providers who set the standards with regards to extreme weather triggers. Then they have a person that's chair of that committee that is a person that actually triggers the strategy. For instance, in Abbotsford it's that individual.

I'll pick another community. Wendy Tyrer, who is with Evergreen House, is in Campbell River. In Cranbrook it's Capt. Kirk Green of the Salvation Army. In Dawson Creek it's Martha Funk or Sheila Hanshaw, who are with the Housing Response Network in that community. In Fort St. John there's another captain with the Salvation Army.

There's a list of communities from small to large across B.C. that have these. For instance, Port Hardy has Joyce and Keith Cousins, who are Salvation Army, and also Sgt. Chris Stewart, from the RCMP, who would make that trigger decision in that particular community. There's a number of them across B.C., whether it be the Sunshine Coast or Terrace or Vernon or Squamish or the North Shore or Port Coquitlam, Port Hardy, Saltspring, Mission, Nanaimo — those sort of things.

So a number of these committees are already set up across the province. They trigger the shelter already today, and they would be the ones that would trigger.

S. Simpson: Moving to the next definition, "emergency shelters." Could the minister tell us whether there is an intention to distinguish different kinds of shelters? The purpose of this question is — as we know, and we'll get into this further on in the bill, for sure — that different shelters provide different kinds of capacity. We'll have a discussion about the no-barrier shelters, the HEAT shelters in Vancouver that allow people the ability, obviously, to bring possessions and things with them. Other shelters don't have that capacity. There are other distinctions among shelters.

Is the sense…? Is "emergency shelter" just to be a catch-all, or is there truly to be any distinguishment between the quality of shelters?

[1430]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is a definition within the act, so it's intended to capture all government-funded and privately funded emergency shelters, including permanent and extreme weather beds. So all the shelters are captured under the definition of emergency shelters.

S. Simpson: Moving to extreme weather conditions. For the purposes of this definition and determining what that is, other than…. I know that later in the legislation it identifies that the community representative for the minister determines whether there are extreme weather conditions.

How, though, is this to be determined? Is there some particular meteorological trigger or something that triggers what a community representative for the minister looks at to determine that this is an extreme weather condition for the purposes of this legislation?

Hon. R. Coleman: The extreme weather conditions are when the weather conditions are set out in an extreme weather response plan that is filed with B.C. Housing or, for areas without plans, the weather conditions that would be prescribed in regulation.

S. Simpson: It says that in relation, the weather response applies, and it talks about the conditions and a plan. Then it says that "any prescribed conditions that are not addressed or identified in the Extreme Weather Response Plan, or (

b) in relation to a geographical area to which no Extreme Weather Response Plan applies…." It says that there are conditions where, if there isn't a plan, there's some determination of what the weather is. There's something that triggers that when there's not a plan. What triggers it?

Hon. R. Coleman: Where the committees exist in communities, we had the plans in place. Each community is a bit different, because the committee locally has made the decisions.

I will give you an example, using Burnaby, where their extreme weather response working group would have this definition. Weather conditions are deemed severe enough to present a substantial threat to life or health of homeless persons. Factors include, in Burnaby, temperatures at or below minus 2 degrees Celsius with zero with windchill — temperatures are not absolute and are flexible to other weather conditions — or freezing rain or significant snow accumulation or severe wind warning.

[ Page 2432 ]

So what would happen outside of not having those committees…. B.C. Housing would be monitoring what the weather conditions were in communities across B.C. where this may be necessary.

They will be encouraging, obviously, additional communities to get their own extreme weather committees together and work with us. They're working, through the regulation that they're working on, to be able to give them the flexibility to make that call or to advise the minister when that call has to be made when there are communities that don't have a committee.

S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments that those communities that don't have a plan in place will be encouraged to do what it takes to make the plan or put a plan in place. We can probably expect that to some degree, there are a significant number or at least a number of communities that for whatever reason may not have a plan in place.

The minister wants to tell me that we can deal with this question later on under the alerts. I'll be happy to deal with it there. But where that plan doesn't exist, where it's not clear who the community representative is, then what would define an extreme weather condition in those communities? Or would it just be a discussion? Would that be a case where the minister would have to talk to whoever he would talk to and then make a determination on what extreme weather was?

[1435]

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm happy to describe to him the work that's ongoing with regards to that before this winter season comes in. Basically, what we've done is…. In every region of the province we have examples of triggering situations by community groups that are already in the process to have people in place. We're blending those triggering processes that we have in places like Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Quesnel or whatever into the regions and breaking the province into two regions for the purposes of developing the regulation.

One would basically be the coastal area of British Columbia, which would stretch from certain areas of the Okanagan down to the coast and up through the Interior because of the different humidities and what have you. The second would be the north and central part of the province and the eastern Rockies. That will then come into the development of a regulation that will have two measurements in areas where there aren't committees in place using the information we have amassed from the groups we already have that have them in place.

Then the regulation will be developed as a standard for that to be used by B.C. Housing with community groups in situations when the weather gets to those levels in those communities, because they don't have a community group. That would then allow them to be able to make the decision, because that particular community doesn't have the triggering mechanism or what have you.

The regulations are in development now on that basis and should be completed fairly shortly after the legislation is completed. The regulations would go forward based on that type of information. If you take, for instance, the Fraser Valley, you would look at Langley, Abbotsford, Surrey, Chilliwack, Mission and say: "What are their community plans triggering?"

I don't think there are many in that area, but let's say one community — for instance, Pitt Meadows — didn't have a triggering mechanism and didn't have a community group that was doing it. You could say: "Well, that's the average of this area, so this is the triggering mechanism for this area." This is the standard in place, so when it hits here, it hits there too.

S. Simpson: Moving to "Extreme Weather Response Plan," the next definition, it says here in the legislation that it "means a current plan, filed with BC Housing, of a person who has entered into an agreement." Could the minister tell us: who might be that person?

Hon. R. Coleman: The term "person" in this context means the broad group of people that would be making the decision with the chair, which obviously triggers it with regards to making the submission to B.C. Housing.

For instance, in each of these communities there is somebody who is actually the person that makes the decision. But the person in this case is the community groups that have come together to build the plan and to have in place the measurements they will measure by when they want to trigger the extreme weather response.

S. Simpson: Maybe there's some legal reason for this. But could the minister tell us why it talks about a person and not an organization or organizations? It speaks specifically of an individual. I interpret it that way.

Hon. R. Coleman: It's because "person" is defined in the

Interpretation Act as being more than just a single-entity person.

S. Simpson: Maybe I have to go back and read the

Interpretation Act. I'll be glad to do that on another day, but not at the moment.

If there's a committee in a community, wherever it may be, that deals with extreme weather…. We know, for example, in Vancouver at the HEAT shelters a committee was struck by the city, which brought a number of different interests together. They worked, I know, with the minister and the government in developing and getting support for the HEAT shelters and putting those in place in the case of Vancouver.

That committee and whatever decision that committee makes — would they be, for the purposes of this,

[ Page 2433 ]

essentially the person identified here? Or would the person be the "community representative" identified earlier who is in fact an individual?

[1440]

Hon. R. Coleman: To try and get this for the member, the "person" is the broader community group, but there is an individual who is designated by that group as the person who is the decision-maker that would inform in the case of a situation with regards to extreme weather. They've come together as a group.

They've identified, for instance, in Vancouver, when weather conditions are deemed severe enough to present a substantial threat to life or health of homeless persons. Factors include "temperatures near zero with rainfall that makes it difficult or impossible for homeless people to remain dry; and/or sleet, freezing rain; and/or snow accumulation; and/or sustained high winds; and/or temperatures at or below minus 2 degrees Celsius."

That group of people, which are service providers and people from the community, probably law enforcement in Vancouver — I don't have the list here — have come up with this as the standard for that city. That's the person.

The individual, though, is identified and designated by that group as the person who actually makes that call. In the city of Vancouver, for instance, making that call is done by an individual who would represent that group. I don't have them right in front of me at this moment. I'll get that for the member. But that's essentially what it is.

S. Simpson: Just so I've got this right, and I think I've got it right. In those communities that have developed a committee, you have a committee made up of any number of interests that play a role. Then there is a community representative who has that authority designated by the minister. That community representative, presumably, comes out of that committee.

Is it the committee that will identify and designate that community representative, and then that will be validated by the minister? Or does the minister choose who in that committee will be that community representative? Does it come from the bottom up, or does it come from the minister down as to who it is that is that representative?

As the minister might know, it may be that the chair of the committee is not the person who is the community representative, for any number of reasons of logistics or other reasons. They have somebody else who maybe is more appropriate for that, so it may not be the chair.

Who makes that decision? Does the committee give the minister a name and say, "This is our choice," or does the minister say: "Here on your committee is the person that should do this"?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, I don't make the decision. Neither does B.C. Housing. It is done by the group at the grassroots level that makes the decision. You're right. It may not be the chair of the group. It could be an individual that is designated by them. They sign an agreement with us on extreme weather conditions for additional shelter space that would be triggered. When that's triggered, it's triggered by them.

For instance, in Vancouver it's a gentleman by the name of James Pratt. James Pratt actually makes that call on behalf of the group of people that has established what those conditions for an extreme weather alert would be and would then trigger it based on those parameters that have been established by that community organization.

S. Simpson: Moving to the definition of "person at risk," is there any distinction — I don't see it here, and I don't see it as it relates to

section 5 — from a person at risk as a person who would be identified as somebody who would be covered under the Mental Health Act?

We know that under the Mental Health Act police and other authorities have a certain ability to deal with issues around somebody who would be captured under the Mental Health Act and may not be in a position to, necessarily, look after their own interests, versus somebody who would not be deemed to be under the Mental Health Act. I assume, in large part, that the Assistance to Shelter Act would cover it.

Is there any distinction around "person at risk" between somebody who would be deemed under the Mental Health Act versus somebody who wouldn't?

[1445]

Hon. R. Coleman: This is not intended to rewrite the Mental Health Act. It's not intended to replace it. It's intended to have a tool to get people to come from the street to the shelter. The Mental Health Act is always there as a tool for police if they wish to use it in situations where they think it would be appropriate.

S. Simpson: Is the minister saying that a "person at risk," then, could be somebody who could be deemed or triggered under the Mental Health Act or somebody who would be deemed not to be covered under the Mental Health Act? It sort of is a…. It's the much broader net. Would that be a fair

interpretation?

Hon. R. Coleman: There are folks on our street who wouldn't actually fall under

section 28 of the Mental Health Act but who still need our help. They could be addicted to drugs or alcohol. They could be on the edges of what would be the edge of mental illness. It wouldn't maybe break them to the strength of

section 28 of the Mental Health Act, but at the same time, they may need our help.

In actual fact, the genesis of this bill was the death of Tracey in Vancouver. The coroner actually identified that one of the challenges was that she was not at a level

[ Page 2434 ]

of exhibiting issues that would have had her be able to be dealt with under the Mental Health Act.

Section 1 approved.

section 2.

S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, if we move down to, under

section 2: "(2)(

b) if, in the opinion of the community representative, extreme weather conditions exist, issue an extreme weather alert in the prescribed manner." Could the minister tell us what the prescribed manner would be?

Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and take some latitude without breaking some issues with regard to the development of regulations, because there are two parallel pieces of work going on, but until regs actually go forward to cabinet, they are still deemed to be confidential. So I'm going to try and stay fairly broad, but I think I can answer the member's question.

What this

section describes is a process for a community representative to issue or cancel an extreme weather alert. That extreme weather response plan, which actually is the alert, is filed with B.C. Housing as the designate and with a community representative identified who's responsible for issuing the alert. That protocol is in existence by an already-existing relationship with B.C. Housing as to how that notice goes and how it's handled. Then the plan describes the weather conditions under which an alert would be issued for that geographic area.

If that community representative believes that the weather conditions described in the plan exist, they may issue the alert, and when the alert is issued, the community representative notifies all police forces within the geographical area covered by the extreme weather response plan and notifies the minister. When we refer to "notifying the minister," in this particular case it would be the Crown corporation responsible. You're informing B.C. Housing. When you're informing B.C. Housing, you're informing, by virtue of that, the minister.

The alert is in effect until the weather conditions no longer exist and/or the alert is cancelled by the community representative. In the event that a community representative fails to cancel an alert, the minister — and that would be B.C. Housing again — may cancel the alert, and must inform the appropriate police forces of that cancellation.

[1450]

As we develop the reg…. Basically, we already have this in place for the alerts. To do the next level of response, we'll use a similar format as what we're already using to do the alerts, and that is: the date of the issuance; the time of the issuance; the description of the extreme weather conditions; the description of the geographical area in which the alert has taken place; the name of the person issuing the alert — which is all required today; and then the names of the persons or entities who will be notified in the communities.

What this basically does is put into the legislation our ability to put into regulation what we're doing today under the alert side of this, saying for the purposes of this particular act….

S. Simpson: So just to confirm here. It will deal with not having to deal with this later on. Is it the minister's intention that his authority will essentially…? Will he designate, as much as the minister designates, his authority to Mr. Ramsay and his officials at B.C. Housing, and will they act on behalf of the minister in terms of operationalizing this legislation? Of course, it all potentially comes back to the minister for final decisions, but will it be Mr. Ramsay and his officials who will make this act operate?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's probably better described as the ministry will make it operate. That is authority that's given through the ministry to the Crown. It's not going to be the minister making the decision. It will be delegated down to the appropriate people who are dealing with this in this particular case, because B.C. Housing handles all the alerts and all the shelter management and implementation across B.C. in cooperation with our non-profit partners. They are the logical people that would actually handle that piece as well.

S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us, to the degree possible here, what the expectations may be about how if there's a decision to…? If an extreme weather alert is put in place by the community representative and the procedures are followed, what is the expectation about how that gets advertised in the community so that the community is aware that that alert has been put in place?

Are there resources for communications? Is there expectation there will be PSAs on the radio or advertisements or something that kind of gets the word out that we have an alert in place?

Hon. R. Coleman: There's one thing that I've got to say here. There is actually a very good system today that does this. So there's no additional stuff being added as far as what information has to be passed. All of this is a system of rigour that's been established over the last two to three years, where we have the community groups, we have the designated person, we have the protocols for communication, we have that all take place.

The police are informed, the community groups are informed, all the shelter providers are informed, and local newspaper and media are informed. That's how it has been working. This is basically describing what we're already doing.

The maturity of the piece that is the extreme weather strategy is actually very good in many communities, and

[ Page 2435 ]

I've been very amazed as the minister to watch this when it has been activated, even in my own community — how quickly the cops show up, the church halls open, the meals are on, and there's extra space for people in severe weather. It just — boom! — happens. It happens because these guys are all pretty well coordinated, and they know what they're doing. They immediately inform.

That's all coordinated by B.C. Housing in these protocols and these agreements that they have with these groups, and it's actually pretty well done.

S. Simpson: I appreciate that many of the systems that are in place…. I've certainly seen some of them operate. There's a fair amount of coordination — local governments and others. But clearly, with Bill 18, the minister has introduced a very significant new wrinkle.

[1455]

As the minister may or may not know, we clearly have a situation where the…. Earlier today I know that at the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association's annual conference, they passed a resolution at their annual general meeting to talk about and to make a request that there be substantive consultation with organizations there — the organizations that are members there — on the development of the regulations before they go forward. I think, as those groups realize, as regulatory changes or those things might happen, it could affect both the way those groups do their work and the way some of this works.

I know they've made that request there, and that's part of my asking some of these questions about processes. I know they are going to have significant questions that they hope to be part of the conversation with the minister or the minister's officials, in terms of development of those regulations. Again, it's because a significant amount of Bill 18 is done through regulation. I know that there is some concern there in relation to that.

When we look at

section 2(3), it says: "The minister may cancel, in the prescribed manner, an extreme weather alert issued under this

section if the community representative does not cancel the extreme weather alert…" etc.

Could the minister tell us under what circumstances or what the thinking is here of the minister and in the legislation that…? Presumably, this would be a case where the minister, or B.C. Housing on the minister's behalf, would overrule a community representative and make a decision to change the position of that community committee. If that's not the intention, then maybe the minister could correct me on that. But what's the thinking for

section 2(3)?

Hon. R. Coleman: We are going to consult, and we are consulting with shelter service providers and people involved in that side of the housing business. We're not necessarily going to the entire body of the B.C. non-profit, which might be operating a family social housing project in a community that has nothing to do with shelter or homelessness or mental health and addiction. Our intent is to get these regs done and consulted with and dealt with so that we're ready for this winter if we pass this legislation now.

I thought maybe just to contextualize this for the member…. There are 32 communities in B.C. that have plans in place. The majority of our larger communities have plans in place. As a matter of fact, 82 percent of the communities with populations over 35,000 people have plans in place for this particular thing.

To answer the member's question, I'll just use an example. It could be for any reason, but let's say, for instance, the Comox Valley. "Temperatures near zero with rainfall that it makes it difficult or impossible for homeless people to remain dry." That's one of the conditions for their particular issue with regards to their alert. Then they add: "And/or sleet, freezing rain, snow accumulation, sustained high winds, temperatures at or below minus 2 Celsius. Feedback from clientele of the various facilities may also be considered." Now, they trigger this.

Now, let's say the individual got sick or the weather changed and went up to 10 degrees Celsius, and they delayed actually changing the time frame when they would actually move out of these shelters, which are there for these, basically, extreme weather triggers.

Then the ability is on the management basis — in this case, it's B.C. Housing — to say: "Guys, the weather has changed. It's no longer required. You haven't advised us of this, but we can see very clearly that this is changing. Therefore, we can use our authority to say that this trigger doesn't exist anymore." We don't run into it often, but I think it's probably just a management tool in case we ever did run into something like that.

S. Simpson: How might that work? Could that work in the reverse? For example, if the local community thought that the extreme weather alert wasn't necessary, and the advice to the minister from his staff was that it should be continued, then does it work in reverse? Could the minister say: "No, I'm overruling, and it's going to continue"?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, theoretically, I suppose it could, but our intent here is to be able to have…. Obviously, if Campbell River says, "We've reached the threshold," we say yes, because we already have a protocol in place with them on what that threshold is, and we trigger because they advise us that they want to trigger.

[1500]

I think it would be disappointing if we ever had to use the reverse of what the member described, where we have to step in when we have a protocol in place, because obviously, that group would not then be necessarily doing the job that they committed to do on behalf of the citizens of that community.

In my time as minister, I don't know of any time where that has happened, where a community group has failed

[ Page 2436 ]

to trigger when things hit. If anything, they will actually…. If there are other circumstances, they will trigger early versus late, because they'll err on the side of caution.

On the reverse side, I don't think we've had the problem either. But in a community, for instance, where there is no group, then I guess it's 100 percent our call anyway at B.C. Housing. So if it's a community that really needs to have something triggered and we trigger it, we're paying. We pay all the bills when this happens. We pay the rent, the shelter, the costs and all that.

We would have to make the decision when the weather changed to not do it, because we don't have any community group giving us input either way. So I do think it's really just a safeguard to make sure that the program and the plan work. It's what we have in place today as to how we manage the system today, that we do have that ability, because it's necessary to have that rigour of discipline within a program like this.

S. Simpson: I just want to bounce back a bit. The minister, in answer to the previous question, had provided a little bit more information around numbers of committees. I think he had said there are 32 communities that have committees in place today. I think that's what I heard the minister say. So how does that, in terms of the province…? Those 32 committees — are those mostly, could the minister tell us…?

Obviously, you have committees in places like Vancouver that absorb a whole lot of the population — and in the Lower Mainland. How many of those committees are outside the Lower Mainland versus the ones that are in the Lower Mainland?

Hon. R. Coleman: Lots. What happens is if you have a major community like Vancouver, often that protocol actually affects Richmond and Burnaby and what have you. But for instance, the Interior in the Okanagan is pretty well covered. Like I said, 82 percent of communities with 35,000 people or more in population are covered already today by committees. The Island is covered basically from Port Hardy to Victoria. The north is basically covered into, you know, the northwest; northeast would be Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, which would be the two major communities up there. That sort of thing. Terrace is covered. Those types of things.

There's actually a pretty good number of groups that are. At the same time, because we have…. For instance, the north is probably not as good an example, but certainly if we triggered in Kelowna, we would know that we would be triggering in Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos and Vernon, because that whole valley is pretty much the same for weather. Even Oliver. Osoyoos may not have a committee in place. We'd know that they would be able to be triggered if we thought it was necessary for shelter in those communities if we had an identified need. So that's basically how it works.

Section 2 approved.

section 3.

S. Simpson: Let me just ask for clarification from the minister here. Is the intention of

section 3 to deal with those communities that don't have committees, or are there other circumstances under which the minister sees

section 3 being triggered other than what might be in communities that have no committee?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think the member probably captured it pretty well in his question. Basically, the provision allows for the law to be applied equally across the province by allowing the minister to issue an alert in areas that do not have a plan. It also allows the minister to issue an alert in areas that have a plan in two circumstances.

[1505]

The two circumstances where he would, basically, would be where the weather conditions are not described in a plan. That allows us to say: "We can go outside the agreement with you." That would be a situation where the plan maybe doesn't have the factors of high wind or a particular weather event that's going to have a severe effect on a community.

Basically, that really goes into areas like severe flood issues. Flood issues aren't necessarily covered, but in some rural areas of B.C., in conjunction sometimes with emergency preparedness, we need to move very quickly on some shelter space for people. So that allows us to bring in an overlapping plan and coordinate with that.

Also, the reason for the provision…. As the member says, if the community representative does not declare an alert despite extreme weather conditions, we need the ability to do it so that we can make sure that measurement is there. But it is basically this provision, as the member described at the beginning of his question, for us to be able to put the plans in place in communities that don't have a plan.

For instance, if Williams Lake had a plan, but Quesnel didn't. Quesnel and Williams Lake and 100 Mile are all sort of in the same weather pattern. It would allow us to do Quesnel and 100 Mile in that area based on the conditions of Williams Lake. So we would probably use what has triggered the plan in one community and say: "Okay, what else in the geographical area needs to be applied immediately?" We would do that.

S. Simpson: The minister talked about the sort of weather or things that might be unique. So does the minister see this section, then…? Other than in those communities that clearly don't have a committee, that can't provide advice or don't have a community representative because they don't have an infrastructure to do that, so the minister or the minister's staff are playing that role….

[ Page 2437 ]

In addition to that, just so I'm clear on the minister's answer, that might also include other kinds of weather conditions other than what we might kind of reasonably expect from this, which would be a question largely of cold and things that come with cold weather — snow and that. There would be other kinds of weather conditions? Does that also get captured by this in what might be extreme or different kinds of unique weather? Is that what the minister is thinking?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, we're not contemplating a whole bunch of other stuff. We're basically contemplating being able to react during severe cold weather with other weather conditions affecting it so that we would be able to put the plans in place in communities that didn't have plans or to make sure the plans were in place.

I guess there could be mitigating circumstances sometimes with regards to these. I don't have all of those answers today — what mitigating circumstances may have a group say to us: "In actual fact, even though it's not zero degrees tonight, we've got other mitigating things like wind and a very, very heavy rainfall and some other issues happening in our community, so that we would like to activate earlier." This gives us the latitude to be able to do that.

Section 3 approved.

section 4.

S. Simpson: Under "Delegation by minister," it talks about, in subsection (1), the minister being able to delegate to an ADM or to the CEO of B.C. Housing. In subsection (2) it talks about delegating authorities under subsection (1) in writing and "…may include any limits or conditions the minister considers advisable."

Could the minister give us some idea about what kinds of limits and conditions might be considered advisable there?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I can. Basically, we talked about this earlier. I mean, we have to have somebody we can designate who is the minister's representative. That's why this reg identifies…. That's why earlier I said it's the ministry or B.C. Housing because I knew this reg was in here, to be able to have it either-or.

Basically, the limits and conditions are that they would have to follow the protocols that are in place with regards to regulation as to what an extreme weather event is. If they wanted to go outside what was in regulation, they would have to talk to the minister.

[1510]

S. Simpson: I mean, there's always some catch-all, I guess, for the minister to kind of be able to go out and make determinations outside, and the regulations might explain that to us later when they are prepared and released. Is the expectation in terms of the limits or conditions…? It's not so much that you might remove some authority from your designate as much as limiting their ability to go past or use greater discretion. Is that what the minister is saying?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's more a matter of clarity and, basically, transparency on the direction that's given to the person that's making these decisions. It also allows the practical operations of the law by allowing individuals other than the minister or deputy minister to issue and cancel alerts.

I mean, you have to have the transparency of here's the regulation, here are the parameters, and this is the direction from you. You now have the authority to do this, and the transparency is that you have to follow through with that. That's basically saying why this designation is here, and that's why it also says that the minister "may include any limits or conditions the minister considers advisable" because that is making sure whatever the reg says and whatever the policy is, that that is the policy and reg that's being delivered.

Section 4 approved.

section 5.

S. Simpson:

Section 5(1) says: "If an extreme weather alert has been issued under

section 2 or 3 and is in effect, a police officer may assess whether a person is a person at risk." What kinds of assessments will the police officer use to determine if somebody is a person at risk?

Hon. R. Coleman: Section (2) basically outlines that assessment. If the alert has been in place, the first

section says that if there's an alert in place, the police officer may assess whether a person is at risk. That gives them the authority to do the assessment.

In the assessment piece, which is the second section, it identifies that the person is in the geographical area covered by the alert. The person is 19 years of age or over, and in the opinion of the officer, the person is suffering physical harm or at risk of physical harm due to extreme weather conditions. Then, also, obviously it says that other conditions must be considered and that the risk assessment may be prescribed by regulation.

We have some work on the regulations with our service providers to do, but this basically gives us the parameters to build that reg so that we can actually have it clear for the law enforcement community to understand it.

S. Simpson: The key to these, of course…. The geographical area is pretty much an easy one to determine. Whether somebody is 19 or not is a judgment call, but in most cases it will probably be pretty evident.

[ Page 2438 ]

But 5(2)(c), "the person, in the opinion of the police officer, is suffering physical harm or is at risk of suffering physical harm because of the extreme weather conditions." Is the minister planning to…? What's the responsibility on the police to make that determination?

Is there a liability at hand here for police who make that determination and decide, let's say, for example, that somebody seems to be doing okay, but it turns out they're not doing okay, and we suffer another tragic situation? Is there a liability on the police officer who has made that assessment if the assessment goes badly?

[1515]

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member notes, this is enabling legislation, so the police officer has the latitude to make a decision. The legislation can be used or not. Police officers already have a duty of care, and this legislation, in our opinion and everything we've got, does not extinguish or add to the duty of care that already exists for police officers. It's just a tool for them — to have one more tool they can use to make a decision with regards to the assessment of an individual.

S. Simpson: We'll assume that in this instance the police are doing this, and if they choose to do this, they will use their best opinion. They will do that. I guess the question I have is: if a police officer enacts this part of the legislation, makes a judgment call, decides that somebody, in fact, isn't at risk for any number of good reasons, maybe, and in fact it turns out that that was an error, is there a liability for the police officer there under this legislation, or is there a liability under other legislation for the police officer?

Hon. R. Coleman: No, because the duty of care is the duty of care. It's there. Police officers have to make these assessments all the time. It's one of the biggest challenges of being a police officer, which I think people forget.

They look and see somebody that does enforcements or investigations but don't realize that they're actually an individual who is asked by the public in many cases to go out on our streets and make a snap decision on maybe 15 or 20 or 30 seconds' information in situations that are highly dangerous to them and other people.

They're also asked to go out and be the front-line social worker and the front-line caregiver in many communities. They actually develop skills to assess people. They're also fallible, and so they may not get it right every time. But the fact of the matter is that they asked for some tools. This is an additional tool, but the duty of care is there either way when they come across somebody that's in distress or could be in distress. Their job is to try and deal with the situation as best as they can and do the assessment as best as they can.

If they make an assessment that they don't think somebody is at risk with regards to this particular piece of legislation, they would make it either way. They would make that assessment based on their experience and their abilities. I know, having done the job, that it's a tough one. I know that making the assessments is tough, and I have a lot of faith in these folks to try and make those to the best of their ability.

This is just a tool to allow them to do one more thing out there, because they're asked to make the assessments on, basically,

section 28 of the Mental Health Act. They're asked to make assessments with regards to people's drug addictions or their alcohol addictions, their mental illness, their health issues all the time.

This doesn't have them do any of that. It just basically in extreme weather conditions says: "In addition to what you see, because of the weather, is this person's life at risk, and do you feel that they need to come inside? Then you should talk to them about it and try and get them — and you have the authority to take them — to a shelter."

Our assessment, as we went through those questions with regards to preparation of the legislation, is that it did not change what the member described.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us why the decision was made to have this be police…? Let me just back up one sec.

The minister has said in comments previously that nobody is being forced to do anything here, that the police will come and make an assessment of the individual. They may determine that they are at risk, and then they can use reasonable force — and we'll talk later about reasonable force — and take that individual to a shelter. Whether the person chooses to stay or leave the shelter is at their own discretion — as to whether they choose to stay at the shelter — though I don't actually see this in the bill, and we'll talk about that.

[1520]

If that's the case, if you're not compelling people to stay at a shelter, could the minister tell us why this is exclusively police officers, and why there was not the engagement of community outreach workers, the people like on the committee, the organizations that do that work? It might be more appropriate in larger jurisdictions.

But those people who do that work every day as outreach workers — why aren't they playing a role under this legislation, and why is it the police? Maybe the minister could explain why it's the police.

Hon. R. Coleman: Everybody plays a role in this. There could be an outreach worker who says, "I have a person under the Granville Street bridge that I'm afraid will freeze to death tonight," and so calls the police. They've got the vehicles. They've got the training. They've got the ability to do this. It is a law….

We've discussed this at length. The people that are out there on the streets doing the other work are partners with the police in all of this, and they would just contact the lo-

[ Page 2439 ]

cal police officer to say: "I think I've got a situation here." Police officers come and assess it. They talk to them. They talk to the individual, and they make the assessment.

We've chosen, whether the member…. We could discuss this all afternoon, but that's the decision we made as to who would have the authority, because that is the body that has authority for, basically, other forms of incarceration or arrest or compelling people to go to things and who are also trained to handle situations if they become difficult. So they are the folks that we feel should be the front line.

In talking to a number of chiefs, they felt the same way. They felt that an untrained person that didn't have the vehicle or that didn't have the ability to understand and to protect themselves in a different way with regards to someone who may have other issues would not be good for public safety. They felt that if there was going to be a power given, it could be to the police officer. So the police officer's opinion comes into it because they're the front-line worker that is dealing with this, and they also have the training.

S. Simpson: We know that there are community workers out there who deal with people who are homeless and with people who have other challenges around mental health and addictions and that every day. They're pretty skilled, generally, at dealing with those folks and pretty skilled at being able to assess them.

The police, as the minister will know, are not social workers. That's not their job. They are law enforcement officers, and their job is to enforce the law and protect people's public safety and security. That's what they do best. I know that there is some concern on the part of some police about whether this is adding a role that may or may not make sense for them. But I'm sure they will do the job if it's the job that they're given.

In the assessment that's being done…. This assessment may be an assessment around health. It may be an assessment in a number of areas. I know that in the case of mental health, it is not uncommon for the police, if they have a concern about mental health, to bring mental health workers in to make that assessment. Sometimes the police aren't prepared to do it themselves, unless of course there's an overt risk of some harm being done to somebody else or somebody doing harm to themselves, and then they intervene. But in other instances, they're inclined often to bring mental health support or outreach workers to play here.

I guess the question I have is…. What we see under

section 5, "Assessment if person is person at risk," is that nowhere in here does it talk about any of those people who bring skill sets that the police, quite frankly, don't have — and it's not their job to necessarily have. Nowhere in there does it require them to play a role in making that assessment for somebody, particularly somebody who's resistant to proceed to a shelter.

If the police come upon somebody and say, "We have a shelter that we're prepared to take you to," and they say, "Hey, that's great. Let's go," that's one thing. If they come upon somebody who says, "I'm not interested" for any number of reasons and is resistant…. We'll probably talk about this later. It's in the assessment that they'll make this determination. Somebody who is resistant to proceed and go to the shelter, do the police…?

[1525]

The question is: why aren't they bringing, or why aren't the police obliged to bring, any of those other resources to the table in that assessment to determine whether, in fact, they should be proceeding to use that reasonable force that's talked about later on in the bill?

Hon. R. Coleman: They do that already. I mean, they have relationships with outreach workers. They have relations with other health providers. This provision, for the member's information, is very similar to the provision that already exists for law enforcement in the Mental Health Act.

It's not like somebody has developed a new provision. The police today don't actually do their…. If there is a mental health issue, they take the person to a hospital, to medical practitioners, under

section 28. In the case of someone like the situation we had in Vancouver last year, that wouldn't have qualified under

section 28, and there was no authority to take them anywhere.

All this is, is a tool to say, "Let's give somebody the authority to take them, when they might be at risk of dying, to at least a shelter to make a decision whether they will come in from the cold during extreme weather conditions" — a very finite period of time with regards to that.

I know the member made the comment that they're not social workers. But I can tell you, if you ask people in the 23 SROs that we have in the Downtown Eastside, where each one is like a beat for the police officer and every one of our clients, they are more than just a police officer.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

But because of that relationship on the social side as well as the enforcement side, crime comes down, there are better results with regards to the people that may end up towards criminality, and the understanding of their issues is much stronger. Without that integration relationship in law enforcement with regards to those people at risk…. You fail the system if you think it's just going to be somebody in a uniform doing the route of certain things, because that's not the job that they deal with every day.

S. Simpson: Police, I guess, are like everybody else. Some of them are better at certain aspects of their job than they are at other aspects, the same as everybody else.

[ Page 2440 ]

I've certainly talked to people on the street and people who work closely with those folks who are on the street. They tell me that some police officers function in the way that the minister has suggested, and they build collaborative relationships with homeless people, with people who are in distress. They build those relationships and have some confidence of those people. Other police officers, not so much.

We know as well that in the instance of folks who are resistant — for reasons that may be sound or not, but people who are resistant — and concerned about interaction with the police, particularly if they think they're going to be taken away somewhere by this, there can be conflict there. That may be conflict that isn't necessarily going to occur with somebody who isn't in uniform. Maybe sometimes it's the relationship of the uniform that does it and may have absolutely nothing to do with the individual officer, their personality and their ability to engage.

Again, I guess the question I have here is on the narrowness of this assessment process, to narrow it down to putting that obligation on the police officers to make that assessment, particularly in the instance of somebody who is resistant.

Clearly, again, for somebody who they assess is at risk, they say: "Hey, do you know that we've got a shelter you can go to?" The person says: "Great, take me." I'm appreciative of that. Obviously, it's a non-issue, and they're happy to get a ride.

In the case of somebody who is not so inclined, or somebody who is concerned about their goods, and their goods may or may not…. I know that hasn't been sorted out entirely — at least, it's not in the bill — about their goods and whether they go with them or other concerns they have about going with the police in a voluntary way. They have other challenges.

[1530]

The question, again, I have is: is there any tool here, or what tools are available to the police, to be able to have that broader assessment done before they get to using the reasonable force that we'll talk about in a minute?

Hon. R. Coleman: So it's two o'clock in the morning. It's 10 below zero. Somebody's going to freeze to death, and the member would like us to phone the mental health worker and this person and that person to come down to do an assessment as to whether somebody should be told that they have to go to a shelter or at least to the door of a shelter. That's probably a philosophical debate that we could do all afternoon. I'm fine with that. I'll deal with the questions as they come at the end of each one of those debates.

The fact of the matter is that you cannot…. The comments the member made about some good police officers, some bad police officers. You could say the same thing about great nurses and not so great nurses, or doctors or mental health workers or whatever the case. Everybody brings a level of expertise to the job they do. Some are better at it than others. But the one thing I know we can't do is legislate perfect behaviour in this world, because if we'd learned that, we would have done it a long time ago.

What we can do is legislate opportunities to have tools to try and address some problems and help people. That's all this is. This is a tool. It's one more tool in the tool box for a law enforcement officer and the communities that support them in the jobs that they do to be able to do one thing.

Other than that, I'm not going to get into a lengthy, I guess, debate about how the police forces of B.C. operate and that sort of thing. I did that in another life, in a previous ministry. This is really about a tool that we felt was necessary to develop, in conjunction with the communities we talked to. There are always people that will say nay to some things and yea to others. You have to decide which policy you're going to take. We've taken this direction, so the tool is there.

The tool, I believe, will be used in a judicious manner, because I have a huge amount of faith in the rank-and-file police officers in British Columbia and their ability to actually implement and use this in a judicious manner when it's necessary to save someone's life.

S. Simpson: I think that what this debate is about is not so much the police officer there or not. The challenge that police have, obviously, is that they are who they are, and some people, particularly street folks, respond differently to police because of who they are and because of what they represent. That creates challenges for police officers.

As the minister says and as I said previously, some police officers will deal with that in a different fashion, some better than others. Some — that's their skill set. Some — not so much. Some have other skill sets. The issue with this legislation is that I think we would all say: how do we maximize the opportunities in extreme weather situations to put the maximum amount of people into shelters and get them off the street, and what's the most effective way to do that?

The debate we're having here is whether this legislation helps or hinders that process. It's my view that this hinders the process and will do more harm than good in terms of getting people off the street. It will do more harm than it will do good in the long run. That's the debate we're having. The debate isn't necessarily the specifics of the police.

The question here…. It's at two o'clock in the morning that the minister talks about that. We know that in many communities, again, there are people who are challenged. Is there a concern here on the part of the minister…?

This concern has been raised by people in the community. It's been raised by people who work with folks on the street. We've heard this commentary in relation to this

[ Page 2441 ]

bill — that folks who are homeless and who may, for any number of reasons, be resistant to the objectives of this legislation and who absolutely could be at risk in severe weather are going to be inclined to look for ways to avoid the police and avoid that assessment that may trigger them being obliged to do things they do or don't like.

[1535]

Has the minister received any advice about whether that is a potential problem? How does that get dealt with, or what supports does the ministry provide to try to seek out those people who may look to go further underground? It's not a large number, I don't believe, but the minister has based a lot of his defence of this legislation on the tragic death of one individual. We're sure that there is more than one individual out there who will go farther underground to avoid this situation. I'm sure the minister doesn't want any tragedy with them either.

Has the minister had any advice and what kinds of advice has he had about whether this may in fact drive people further underground?

Hon. R. Coleman: It's a theoretical comment by the member with regards to the legislation. The legislation, the Assistance to Shelter Act, is a tool that describes the circumstance it can be applied.

I'm not going to get into a debate about what may or may not happen in an individual's case. The member knows very well that people that deal drugs try to avoid the police. People do all kinds of things to try and avoid different authority figures. This is a tool to help someone that is clearly on our street in severe weather conditions. The police officer comes across them and has the opportunity to help. They have the authority to take them to a shelter.

The rest of it is all…. Frankly, it was probably second reading debate and isn't relevant to the

section of the legislation.

S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: did he consult or did his officials consult with people in the community who work directly with the homeless? Did he consult with anybody in determining that the police were the best people to do this assessment of a person at risk?

Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we talked to different people, like police chiefs, social workers and people in the communities, but in addition to that, we have a huge body of information within our own ministry. We have outreach workers and social workers that deal with people every day. As we came through this thing last year, the whole discussion took place within government — the discussion with regards to whether we should try and do something — and this is what we decided to do.

S. Simpson: The minister talked about internal consultation with the body of knowledge that rests within the ministry, and I respect that body of knowledge. He talked about the consultations with law enforcement. He talked about social workers. I don't know whether those were social workers within the ministry or whether they were people external to the ministry.

Did the ministry consult around this use of police as the exclusive body in this legislation — the exclusive enforcement organization, the police, for Bill 18? Did he consult with folks who work in the community in the non-profit sector, in the non-governmental sector, that works on the street with homeless people? Did he or did his officials consult, and what advice did he receive from them about this notion of the police as the exclusive body for this?

Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, a draft of this legislation became public a number of months ago. We've had a robust input from all kinds of people, frankly, from all aspects of the public, with regard to this, in addition to our own consultations and in addition to working with law enforcement. If the member were to just go back to the press release that announced that we were actually going to introduce the act, you had two significant leaders in law enforcement in British Columbia who were quoted in the press release. Obviously, there was some buy-in there.

This

section deals, basically, with the criteria for police to do the assessment on a person with regards to it. It's pretty clear what it is. I've explained that to the member.

We don't give statutory authority to people like outreach workers. We had to come up with statutory authority for police to be able to move someone to shelter, and that's why it's done this way.

[1540]

S. Simpson: We know. We did have information that previously came out. Of course, part of the challenge with the previous information that came out is that it suggested incarceration of people who weren't prepared to go to a shelter and that they may potentially be thrown in jail. That particular aspect of the previous piece of work that the minister references kind of absorbed everybody's attention because of what was considered the outrageous nature of that particular aspect of that. It sort of absorbed all the oxygen on that discussion.

The question I had was not around the question of law enforcement officers. I appreciate very much that law enforcement was consulted in this. The minister has said that, and I understand that.

It's also not a question of giving statutory authority to anybody else. It's a question of having had a conversation with people who do this work on the street every day for reputable organizations that do this work on the street every day.

I'm not talking about folks who would protest every turn of what the government does or the police do, and

[ Page 2442 ]

there certainly are people who do that. But there are very credible, reputable groups out there who work every day with homeless people on the street and look to try to find ways to get them into shelters, to get them into other services, to make their lives better, to deal with these issues.

The question I had is: did the minister receive advice that suggested that police officers were not the appropriate body to be doing this assessment? And if he did receive that advice…. Maybe we'll start with: did he receive any advice from those organizations, if he consulted with them, that police officers were not the appropriate people to do this assessment?

Hon. R. Coleman: The only people who thought somebody was going to be incarcerated were those who were inflaming the issue, because it wasn't in any of our documentation at the time. So let's be clear about that.

You chose, and others chose within your party, to go out and say that we were going to lock people up, but it wasn't true, and at no time have you ever corrected the record. I'll give you that opportunity to correct it today.

At the same time, this

section 5 describes the criteria for the police assessment that a person is at risk under this act — who they are, under an extreme weather alert, when it's been issued and other factors. That's what this

section is dealing with.

It is not about what consultation took between what organization you wish to dream up to today. It is about

section 5 of the act.

S. Simpson: Just in response to the minister's comments, there in fact are discussion documents out there that come out of the government that talk exactly about that incarceration. The reality is that the government backtracked on doing that because they knew they couldn't get away with it. I think it was fully this minister and this government's intention to do exactly that until counsel told them they couldn't do it. I wouldn't back off that, because it is true.

With that, I'll sit and let

section 5 pass.

Section 5 approved.

section 6.

S. Simpson:

Section 6 is the "Request to go to emergency shelter or accommodation." For those who may be paying attention to this debate, this is the

section that says that if a police officer has made an assessment under

section 5 and they have determined somebody to be a person at risk, the police officer has a number of things they can request. They can request that the person at risk choose to accompany the police officer to an emergency shelter or go unaccompanied to an emergency shelter or another accommodation.

So under this, am I to understand, then, that if a police officer talks to somebody who is deemed to be at risk and says, "Sir, I think you're in a desperate situation here. You're in a bad situation. You should go to a shelter. Here's the address of shelter X" — the closest appropriate shelter, possibly — and if the person says, "Yeah, I'll go to the shelter," then that's the end of the conversation? They have said, "Yes, I'll go to the shelter," and the police officers then leave? What do the police do to deal with this situation?

[1545]

Hon. R. Coleman: This

section provides that prior to taking a person to a shelter involuntarily, the police officer asks the person to choose to go voluntarily to an accommodation. It is an important choice for the individual to have and enables them to take shelter independently to ensure their own safety. That's what this allows. Basically, the police officer has to provide that opportunity first, and either way, on either side, it doesn't extinguish the duty of care.

S. Simpson: So to understand the practical application of this…. Again, then, if I'm on the street, a police officer comes and says to me: "I think you should be going. It's 10 below tonight" — or whatever it is — "and you don't have proper protection from the weather. I want you to go to a shelter. The shelter is three, four blocks down the street. I want you to go to that shelter…."

If I say to the police officer, "Yeah, okay, I'll go to the shelter," then is the police officer done with me? If he accepts, then, that I've said, "Yeah, I'll go to the shelter," and he goes on to other duties and responsibilities, then whether I am in fact good for my word or not is up to me? How does the police officer determine whether I in fact went to the shelter?

Hon. R. Coleman: I think at that point some personal responsibility has been taken by the individual, and the police officer would probably move on because they've said they're going to shelter. Now, if an hour or two later they came back and the person hadn't moved, then they might not take their word the second time — but certainly the first time. I think that's where the judgment of the police officer comes into it.

I think it's important to understand that both police officers and outreach workers that are out…. Remember, this is an extreme weather condition that's been triggered, and it has to be triggered for even this legislation to be in force. When it's triggered, oftentimes people who are on the streets do not know where the additional shelter space is that is triggered and opened up in those circumstances.

So it's part of the education side of them, it's part of the opportunity to explain to them where they can go, and it's a part of the opportunity to be able to have the opportun-

[ Page 2443 ]

ity for the person to make the choice to go to the shelter of their own independence, for their own safety.

S. Simpson: I think that having somebody…. I imagine this is actually more of a community role, but the police would have that list as well. Because what happens, I assume, when extreme weather shelters are in place is that it takes a little bit of time — not too much, but a little bit of time — for the word to get around to people who are on the street as to where those shelters are. The trapline is pretty good. The word gets around pretty quickly as to where shelters are and their availability, so lots of people know, and there are lots of people who will give them advice — their peers, among others — about where the shelters are.

Is there any condition here? It speaks to concerns that were raised in second reading, that the request to go to a shelter or accommodation…. There is the issue of possessions, an individual's possessions — or maybe they have a pet, whatever — those kinds of items that people should not reasonably be expected to leave behind.

What is the expectation about how that issue gets addressed in terms of people's possessions with the request under 6(1)(

a) to accompany a police officer to emergency shelter? How do people's possessions get addressed if this request is moving ahead and somebody says: "I'm happy to go to the shelter, but I won't go to the shelter without my stuff"?

Hon. R. Coleman: We have work ongoing right now with B.C. Housing and in communities to address the issues the member has addressed, before the winter, and it will include issues like we already have had with the experience of carts and pets through our HEAT shelters last winter. The relationship of the SPCA with regards to pets and storage of carts and where we can do it and all of that work is ongoing right now.

[1550]

S. Simpson: As the minister I'm sure would agree, that's a pretty critical piece of work to be completed so that a person on the street has confidence, either that their goods and their possessions are going to come with them or they're going to be secured in a way that the person can have a reasonable amount of confidence, that at the end of their shelter stay they'll be able to come back and their stuff will be there in the condition that they left it and safe for them.

What is the timeline? Not wanting to get into the detail…. I understand this is regulation. This would be one of the areas that I know I referenced earlier. The Non-Profit Housing Association is passing this resolution today at their annual conference. I don't believe for a minute, as the minister had referenced….

This wasn't about every group in that association wanting to be part of that discussion, but it was the vast majority of those groups in that association knowing full well that this is a discussion that has to occur and that there need to be solutions put in place with those of their members who actually have an acute interest and expertise in this area. That's what that resolution was saying.

So the question I have is: when might that piece of work be done? And is there an assurance that that question will be resolved before it's expected that this legislation will actually have to be used on the ground?

Hon. R. Coleman: Today it already is, for the most part. I'll give you a number of examples. In Vancouver 15 shelters accept carts, and ten accept pets today. That is a huge expansion from where it was just a year or so ago. In communities across B.C…. In addition to that, we have them in Squamish. In the Fraser region we have shelters. We have shelters in Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope, Burnaby, Surrey and White Rock that accept both pets and carts.

We also have shelters in Hope and other places like Abbotsford and in the Tri-Cities that accept carts only. Sometimes it's just because of the issue with regards to construction of buildings. They're accepted at three places in Victoria for carts and pets. They're also, on Vancouver Island, accepted in Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Duncan and also in Victoria for carts only.

We are continuing to expand that capacity. As we design the strategy for this winter, we recognize that it is one of the things that will encourage people to come inside. We have managed to find ways to secure the carts and actually take care of the other issues that could come with them by making sure the rooms are heated to a certain temperature so that things like bugs can't transfer and survive and that sort of thing.

All of those things are things we've learned in our shelter strategy over the last three years. We're going continue to do that into this winter. We're going to continue to accommodate more and more as we see fit and take care of the issue with regards to that.

S. Simpson: I'm pleased and glad that an increasing number of shelters are being developed or are designing their efforts to be able to accommodate carts, pets, people's possessions, whatever they might be. Hopefully, that will continue to expand. I know in the city of Vancouver, which is the community I know best, that in fact is the case, and I know there's a fair amount of attention being paid to expanding the number of groups there.

The question I had was around transport. This

section talks about accompanying police officers to an emergency shelter. Once folks are there with their stuff…. It's understandable that the shelter may be designed in such a way as to support that. The question is that police, a couple of cops in a car, are going to take somebody. It may or may not be at all practical for them to take a shopping cart in that car. It may or may not be, depending on just the capacity to do that.

[ Page 2444 ]

What is the thinking or the work of the ministry to find a way to ensure that at that end, actually moving people and their goods — that their goods get moved?

Hon. R. Coleman: As I said earlier to the member, we're working on that too. That's what we're doing, going into this winter — for that capacity, the ability to do that as well.

[1555]

S. Simpson: Can the minister give us some idea of what the options might be? Not what the decisions are — I understand that those are regulation. That's a matter for cabinet decision — recommendation and cabinet decision.

Could the minister give us an idea of what the options are or some of the variety of options that might be available to deal with that question of how the goods come when somebody accompanies a police officer to a shelter under 6(1)(a)? What are the choices? How might that occur, that their goods get there?

Hon. R. Coleman: This isn't a regulation. The partnerships are being built now through the discussions we're having with the community. The resources are being applied, and we're working through the operational details. That's what we're doing over the next month or so.

S. Simpson: Then, if it's not a regulation, we can have a more fulsome discussion. Is the minister suggesting that the government is prepared, say, in the case of a situation like Vancouver, to put up some extra resources so that the police can…. They come, and they want me to come to a shelter, and I say: "Yeah, okay, I'll come to the shelter, but I got all this stuff here. I've got my two carts tied together, with everything I own."

Is the minister saying: "Yeah, well then the police can…? There's a number that they can call? We've provided some resources for somebody to pop out from a non-profit up the street and put the stuff in a van and take it to wherever it goes?" Is the government talking about putting resources in to make that happen, putting dollars on the table in communities to allow that to happen? Is that the intention?

Hon. R. Coleman: I've told the member that we're working on that now. We're working on that now. I can't give you the entire operational side of this because I actually have people working on it as we develop both the legislation and the regulation.

You should know that we actually do some of this now, as well, where we actually have vehicles that will come and take the cart for the individual to a particular shelter. We're looking at how we expand it, how we manage it, how it fits into the extreme weather strategy.

Remember, again, Member, that this is a finite period of time with the extreme weather strategy with regards to this issue in and around carts. We're looking at our resources, how we would manage them, where they would be mustered, how they would be dealt with so that we can deal with that issue. I assure the member that that work is going on right now.

S. Simpson: I continue to ask that question because that's the question that gets asked, or it's one of a number of questions. There are also questions around civil rights and civil liberties and other matters, of course. But that is one of the compelling questions that gets asked. It's a concern that I share — how these matters get dealt with.

Lots of people, I think, are looking for an answer that gives them some comfort that isn't there. Part of that is this concern about the fact that this is all so much in regulation and in discussions that aren't reflected in the legislation itself.

Under

section 6(2), the accommodation…. It talks about other accommodation. What is it that the government was thinking about, as other accommodation? It provides some general suggestions: "…to which the person at risk can secure entry…;" and a "…person at risk is entitled or permitted to reside;" and "…is a structure, vehicle or vessel primarily designed to be used as living quarters and provides protection from physical harm or risk of physical harm due to extreme weather conditions…." We'll talk about what "other prescribed conditions" are.

[1600]

Could the minister give us an idea of what the thinking is around this and what that might include, other than when the police come and talk to me, me saying: "Well, maybe I can go to my friend Joe's house and sleep on his couch"? Other than that, what might this include?

Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it means that the accommodation has to be real. We do have some people, for instance, that are street-involved, who would be out on the street in these circumstances and be in a state of intoxication or whatever and who actually have an SRO room that they could go back to. They could say that, and that would be fine, but the accommodation has to be real.

It's not a case of just saying: "Thank you very much." It gives the definition to the flexibility to understand what accommodation is available.

Madam Chair, could we take a five-minute recess, please?

The Chair: Committee will recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[C. Trevena in the chair.]

[ Page 2445 ]

S. Simpson: In regard to other accommodation, it talks in the

section about accompanying the police to that other accommodation. Would it be the expectation of the minister that the police would then have to determine that that was appropriate accommodation? And I use that term loosely.

Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, and I think subsection (2) outlines it correctly.

S. Simpson: So then they pull up to a building or whatever. Is it the expectation of the minister that the police would escort the person, as they would presumably escort the person into the shelter — as we know, they could choose to stay or leave the shelter — or into that accommodation, to satisfy themselves that it was accommodation and that they weren't going in the front door and out the back door of a building?

Hon. R. Coleman: The police will know where the shelters are. They'll know that it's a shelter when they take them there, so they would be able to easily make the assumption that it's proper accommodation. Otherwise we wouldn't be funding it or having it open.

[1610]

S. Simpson: I think this fits under

section 6. Otherwise I can ask it under 7, but I think it fits under 6. We know there are a number of people who are on the street, maybe folks who would be less inclined to enter a shelter of their own volition and might be more inclined to want to stay away for any number of reasons. Also, some of them are challenging.

This raises the question about the shelters themselves. There are people, the minister will know, who have been barred from some shelters because of their conduct when they've been in the facility or because the shelter operators are concerned that the individual may be a risk to other people in the shelter in some fashion.

How do the police…? When they're determining to take somebody to a shelter, when we get them to accompany somebody to a shelter, how does that interaction work? How do the police know, with somebody who may be particularly challenging that they're taking at least to the door, that they're taking them to the door of a shelter where…? If there is a problem there, how does that get dealt with? How do the police deal with that matter? What's that relationship?

Hon. R. Coleman: We can do all kinds of theoretical situations, but I can tell the member that we have a variety of shelters, particularly in the community he lives in — some where a person of a certain type of risk would be more successful than in others. Working with the outreach workers and the community workers, the police have a pretty good assessment of that.

Obviously, there are going to be situations where a person is not going to go in for whatever reason, and that's going to be the choice that they have. I think our choice is to try and at least get them there to make an informed decision to come in from the cold.

I guess we could spend the next hour or two just giving me every hypothetical situation where something might not be perfect, but I can't actually create a perfect world. The reality is that this is a tool that's there to be able to take someone from the street to a shelter in a severe cold-wet weather situation where the weather is so extreme that they could die from exposure on the street.

The act clearly says that they accompany the police officer to an emergency shelter. We have emergency shelters. Those are added to whenever the weather changes, and we add even more when the weather is even more extreme. Those folks know they're dealing with a population that they may not be familiar with.

You talk about a shelter provider that's had an experience with a particular person coming to a shelter. The shelter, if it was an extreme weather shelter, may never ever come in contact with this individual, because it's only open for four, five or six days and then closes again. It's not a 24-7-