Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, October

23, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

F. Donnelly: Today in the Hall of Honour, members of the Tri-City Iranian seniors club were present

for a very special performance of women, life, freedom. Organizers Morjgan and Melody

joined performers Melina, Berang, Faribors, Nachmahae, Amir, Raman, Zara and Ida,

who were also joined by Yuna, who is behind the camera.

Thank you to the Premier and to MLAs from both sides of the aisle who joined at some

part of the presentation, and thank you to the members of the Tri-City Iranian seniors

club for making the trek all the way from Coquitlam today.

Zan, zendegi, azadi .

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. H. Bains: In the gallery today are a number of friends. They travelled all the way from Kelowna

— most of them — including a couple of them all the way from India.

Up in the gallery are Shiva Anand, Rinu Anand, Rishi Lamba, Rajesh Anand, Priya Lakshmi,

Rag Mahajan and Gurinder Singh.

Most of these young folks came here as international students. They went through a

lot. We all understand the difficulty and challenges all newcomers, per se, but especially

the students, go through. Not only did they completed their endeavours, but they are

actually establishing themselves to be very productive members of our society. Their

parents are here to visit them now to see the successes that they are going through.

I'm so happy that they are all here and made it into question period and to see how

this system of democracy works.

I warned them about question period. I told them that this is probably one thing that

I enjoy the most, although I'm the one that never got a question. That's why, maybe.

I just want to say, please help me welcome these fine young men and women and their

parents from India and give them a warm welcome.

Hon. A. Mercier: I'd just like to introduce some guests in the gallery: the civil service team from

post-secondary for myself and Minister Robinson, who have done all of the heavy lifting

on the International Credentials Recognition Act we introduced today.

I've been telling people that I'm just the pretty face. They're doing all of the real

work. I'd like to introduce Tony Loughran, Kate Haines, Alayna van Leeuwen, Emily

Lewis, Alejandra Lemus, Christine Fast and Eben Watt, as well as Wen He, Marcelina

Iverson, David Bodrug and Tess Syrowik.

Will the House please make them welcome.

Hon. B. Bailey: It's my pleasure today to introduce several folks from the Canadian Manufacturing

and Exporters, here for the annual Manufacturing Day at the Legislature.

Today we have, from the B.C. team: Andrew Wynn-Williams, CME divisional VP, B.C.;

Jennifer Tsang, CME director of operations B.C.; Leninka Turcotte, CME events marketing

manager, B.C.; and Ivy Legatova, CME office and events coordinator, B.C.

They're joined by many others from throughout the manufacturing sector. I'll read

their names relatively quickly. There are 12: Carol Arneson, Jastram Engineering;

Chris Sellathamby, Weir-Jones Engineering; Colin Campbell, Acera Insurance; Jonathan

Robertson, Rimex Supply; Lesley Noland, Starline Windows; Tod Gilbert from VMAC; Trevor

Borland, Pacific Bolt Manufacturing; Alan Spear, Humble Manufacturing and Jeda Industries

— almost Jedi industries — Chris Nudd, Hazelwood Group; Lawrence Eade, Purdy's Chocolatier;

Lisa McGuire, Manufacturing Safety Alliance of B.C.; Melanie Potyondi, Rimex Supply;

and Rob Shearar, Acera Insurance.

The manufacturing sector is, of course, very important to B.C.'s economy, and I know

the MLAs from both sides of the House will enjoy meeting with folks from this important

sector.

R. Merrifield: Well, it was five years ago, almost to the day, that my dad was diagnosed with cancer,

and he did so to celebrate his 70th birthday or so, he said.

Fast forward to five years later, and my dad, being the ever overachiever, ended up

celebrating his 75th birthday last week in the hospital, being diagnosed with heart

disease as well as having two stents put in.

But he says that he's done overachieving for now, so would the House please join me

in celebrating that he is right as rain and ready for his birthday party this week

and that he is going to be done overachieving with any more health concerns on significant

birthdays.

Hon. G. Lore: I have a constituent in the gallery today, Nahid Safari. She's a PhD student at UVic,

an instructor and an advocate. She is also a passionate and dedicated advocate for

the ongoing struggle for women's rights and freedom in Iran.

Will the House please make her feel very welcome.

[1:40 p.m.]

K. Paddon: I rise to welcome Kelli Favro here in the gallery today. She's joining us on behalf

of the initiative My Voice, My Choice.

This group is made up of Canadian victim complainants for Canadian victim complainants.

It seeks to amend the federal criminal code so that no person is ever forced into

silence due to an unwanted publication ban. Over the past year, they've provided recommendations

to the federal government that are set to become law next week through Bill S-12.

Could everyone please join me in welcoming Kelli Favro to the Legislature.

R. Parmar: I have the distinct pleasure of welcoming some constituents from Langford–Juan de

Fuca, in particular the district of Sooke, here to the Legislature today.

From the Sooke Region Museum and Historical Society, we have, in the Speaker's gallery,

Lee Boyko who has served nearly 17 years as executive director of the museum. Sadly,

he is going to be semi-retiring and moving on to bigger things in the years ahead.

We have Doni Eve, who serves as president of the Sooke Region Museum and Historical

Society.

I have the distinct honour, as has my predecessor John Horgan, in welcoming to the

House Elida Peers, a renowned historian from the district of Sooke and also an Order

of B.C. recipient. Elida has certainly dedicated a significant portion of her life

to preserving and promoting the history of Sooke and its surrounding areas.

She truly is a pillar of the Sooke community. For me, she's not just a historian but

truly is a custodian of recognizing the past of Sooke and making an effort for people

like me to better understand the traditions, cultures and customs of Sooke.

Will you please join me in welcoming Elida, Doni and Lee to the Legislature here today.

R. Russell: You've heard some of us from more remote places comment in this place about how we

don't get guests that often from our ridings. It's even more uncommon to run into

somebody here that is from my hometown that I didn't know was here.

This morning that happened, so I just wanted to welcome Donald Pharand, who's an outspoken

activist from my community.

Welcome him to the building.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Powell River–Sunshine Coast.

Interjections.

N. Simons: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and thank you to my three friends.

It's a pleasure to welcome four guests from the Sunshine Coast here this afternoon

to the chamber. In the Speaker's gallery, I'm pleased to see my friends and council

for the district of Sechelt: Donna Bell, Adam Shepherd, Darren Inkster and His Worship

John Henderson.

Will the House please make them welcome.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

AWARENESS MONTH

K. Paddon: Intimate partner violence, sometimes referred to as domestic violence, rifts lives

and families apart. The places and people we call home are meant to be where we are

safest and loved, which makes the betrayal of this type of violence all the more difficult.

Added to that are the stigma and the myths associated with intimate partner violence,

which can make it harder to speak out and to find help.

At a time in our communities where we see a rise in gender-based violence, supports

are more important than ever. That's one of the reasons I'm so proud to share what's

happening in Chilliwack and Kent. It's called Chilliwack Purple Light Nights.

Inspired by the Covington Domestic Violence Task Force in King County, Washington,

an international campaign is highlighting October as Domestic Violence Awareness Month.

For the entire month, businesses and homes are asked to shine a purple light to help

honour victims and survivors and to send the message that domestic violence has no

place in our community — purple, the colour, representing courage and unity and a

light to show the way.

Activities for this Domestic Violence Awareness Month have included information tables

and hockey night with the Chilliwack Chiefs. And there are silhouette locations throughout

our community, silhouettes that break my heart but that are so important. These cutouts

are the silent witnesses. Each one represents someone impacted by intimate partner

violence, created by inmates at Ford Mountain Correctional Centre. Each has a QR code

that links to a story — a story from one of our neighbours.

[1:45 p.m.]

There are so many partners and businesses making this possible, but I want to extend

my gratitude to the organizers: Chilliwack Community Services, Stó:lō Nation, Wilma's

Transition Society, Chilliwack Soroptimists, Ann Davis Transition Society, Chilliwack

community policing, Chilliwack RCMP, United Way.

Whether it's a porch light or a lawn sign, we can all show our support. This month

we can all shine a light to save a life, to honour those who lost their lives to domestic

violence, to support survivors and to give hope to those still living with abuse.

Together the folks in Chilliwack and Kent stand with survivors.

HOMELESSNESS AND RECOVERY

IN WHITE ROCK

T. Halford: Two years ago out in front of my constituency office, I had an unfortunate incident

where a man was obviously having quite a difficult time, and he decided that he would

take a steel pipe to the side of my office. My staff quickly called the White Rock

RCMP. They came. The gentleman was then taken to Peace Arch Hospital.

What he did next, after, was that he decided that he, with the White Rock RCMP, wanted

to come and meet with me, specifically, to apologize for that incident. To be honest,

he didn't really have a lot to apologize for. He was obviously struggling, and he

was having some significant struggles. The number one struggle was that he did not

have a home.

Fast forward two years. About a month ago this gentleman, through his hard work of

two years of sobriety, came to my office because he was coordinating the end homelessness

rally, the homelessness support walk that happened out front of my constituency office

which was led with the Sources Community Resource Centre and the Peninsula Homelessness

to Housing society.

This gentleman has given everything he's got for two years to remain sober in order

to be a participant in the community and to actually foster a relationship with his

child, a relationship that has been severed for over two decades.

I want to highlight the walk that we had in White Rock. It happened in front of my

constituency office. It was a walk that I was proud to take

part in. I know in White

Rock specifically, in the last five years, we've seen a dramatic spike in homelessness.

I just want to highlight this one gentleman's story because it is a story, I'm sure,

that is happening in various communities throughout. But it is through the hard work

of some of these…. Some of these individuals that have seen so much trauma in their

lives are able to get to a place where they see hope.

I want to say thank you to that gentleman today. I know that he's watching, and I

look forward to what we can do together to make White Rock a better place.

SURREY LIBRARIES YOUTH

WRITING CONTEST

J. Sims: It is said that great writers start as avid readers.

October is national Library Month, and I was lucky enough to attend a gala recognizing

the winners of the 36th Surrey Libraries Youth Writing Contest. Since 1987, this contest

has played a vital role in fostering literacy, creativity and confidence in young

writers. The contest offers an opportunity for the participants to submit work to

be judged by local writers.

Hundreds of entries were narrowed down to recognize 30 in six different categories.

Those recognized were highlighted throughout the evening, and each of them shared

either a passage from their work or shared their experience of creating. From short

stories to poetry, comics to spoken word and even a song, we witnessed fresh, unfiltered

perspectives as young writers shared their passion for their craft.

Gone are the days when a writing contest is a poem or a story. Their willingness to

take risks and to experiment with new styles, genres and themes showed us how they

embrace their own visionary potential. Their excitement and dedication was more than

inspiring. Learning about their challenges, their resilience and their commitment

reminded us that setbacks are part of a life journey and never an excuse to quit.

It was wonderful to come together with families, writers, mentors and sponsors to

celebrate and recognize the talent and creativity of those young authors. Congratulations

to every single writer for sharing their work. It takes a lot of courage to submit

your writing to be read and judged by others.

Thank you to Surrey libraries for supporting our young readers and writers through

creative, innovative and supportive programs. And thank you to all the librarians.

[1:50 p.m.]

NATIONAL WOMEN’S UNDER-18

HOCKEY CHAMPIONSHIP

M. Bernier: Well, who doesn't like hockey? In fact, some of the best hockey to watch is women's

hockey…

An Hon. Member: Yes!

M. Bernier: …and I'm proud to say — thank you — that Dawson Creek will be hosting the 2023 National

Women's Under-18 Championship again, which is a showcase of Canada's top women hockey

players under 18, from November 5 to 11.

We're lucky to have a partnership in Dawson Creek with Hockey Canada, B.C. Hockey

and the city of Dawson Creek for ongoing national events just like this. There are

going to be eight teams coming: B.C., Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec, a combination

of the Atlantic provinces, and two teams from Ontario. I also know that nerves will

be on edge for these women because we're also using this event for players to be scouted

for the opportunity to play on Team Canada.

I want to thank our neighbouring communities as well — the district of Chetwynd, West

Moberly First Nations and Saulteau First Nations, who will be hosting the two Ontario

teams on November 4 for an exhibition game.

Local Tumbler Ridge player Makena Lloyd-Howe will be able to show off her skills on

Team B.C. in her hometown when she and her teammates will be travelling to Tumbler

Ridge on November 4 for a practice and a meet-and-greet at the Tumbler Ridge rec centre.

The players, which I also thank them for, will be spending their one day off in Dawson

Creek meeting with our youth, touring in all of the elementary schools.

These events could not happen if it weren't for the region pulling together, whether

it's the hundreds of volunteer hours that go into this or everybody stepping forward

with all of the donations, sponsorships and grants. This is also a great opportunity

to showcase and support women's hockey and, as a side note, is projected to bring

$1.8 million of revenue into the province of British Columbia for that week.

Thanks to everyone involved for bringing this event to Dawson Creek. Best of luck

to all the players and their teams, and we look forward to another successful Hockey

Canada event in my region, November 5 to 11.

HOUSING PROJECTS AND QMUNITY

CENTRE IN VANCOUVER–WEST END

S. Chandra Herbert: Well, I was walking down Davie Street the other day, and a constituent stopped me

and said, "Where are you going?" I said, "Well, I'm in a bit of a rush, but I'm on

my way to announce a new housing project for our community, affordable housing."

He said, "Well, which one?" And I said, "You're right. It's not just one. We've had

a lot." I say that because there have been many years where we didn't have any. In

this case, I was on my way to Davie and Burrard, where we got to unveil, we got to

dig the dirt, we got to get going on 154 new homes for low- and moderate-income families

and individuals in the West End. Yes, it was a hopeful moment.

We know the need that families face. We know the need that seniors have. We know the

need that our community in the West End and Coal Harbour have had for a long time,

to have that secure housing. That's what builds communities. That's what builds safe

and wonderful places to call home.

So 154 homes, but that's not all. In that announcement, we also got to unveil that

we'll be building the new home for QMUNITY B.C.'s gay, lesbian, trans, two-spirit,

intersex resource. It's exciting because we've been trying to get that built for as

long as I have been associated with what first I knew as the Centre.

Over 20 years we've been trying to get that centre built, and because of an investment

by the provincial government, $29.8 million — and I say thank you to the people of

B.C.; it is their money; we need to remember that — we're actually getting that project

built.

To see the eyes, to see the tears, to see the joy in people who had this little dream,

which slowly built new spaces for seniors, new spaces for young people, new spaces

for immigrants coming to our community for the first time and wanting to find acceptance

and love, is very exciting. I can't wait to see people moving into their new homes.

CAROLILY FINERY AT

PARIS FASHION WEEK

B. Stewart: Let's transport ourselves to the glittering streets of Paris, the enchanting city

of love, haute couture and boundless dreams. Picture a grand runway, bathed in soft light, where fashion

whispers secrets to the world.

In this magical setting, our story unfolds: the tale of Carolily, a brand that danced

its way from West Kelowna to the heart of Paris Fashion Week. Meet Donna and Danielle

Scheven, our dynamic mother-daughter duo, standing backstage with their hearts racing.

[1:55 p.m.]

Their jewelry, meticulously crafted by Donna herself, awaited its moment in the spotlight.

Then it happened. The lights dimmed, music swirled, the models glided forth, and among

them, adorned with Carolily's jewels, they shimmered — a testament of love, creativity

and generations intertwined.

Their jewelry graced the Silk Epoque show by Olga Ziemann. The anticipation and the

thrill of discovering their designer appearing on the day of this show added another

extra layer of excitement to this incredible journey. Let's not forget their Rolls

Royce anniversary celebration, a moment of pure opulence and joy.

Some pieces of their Paris Fashion Week collection have already found loving homes,

leaving a trail of beauty and elegance around the world.

Here's to Carolily, a legacy artfully woven with love, endless creativity and the

enchanting magic of four remarkable generations. It's a story that continues to unfold

with breathtaking excitement and boundless wonder.

Oral Questions

DRUG TOXICITY CRISIS AND

MANAGEMENT OF SAFE SUPPLY

S. Bond: Under this Premier's watch, a taxpayer-funded drug crisis has exploded. Urgent warnings

from doctors over the past 18 months were dismissed, despite the growing and undeniable

proof. Diverted hydromorphone pills, or dillies, now flood platforms like Reddit,

sold openly by the tens of thousands. Shocking images show mounds of white pills next

to their original prescription bottles, part of the NDP's so-called safe supply.

When is the Premier going to stop turning a blind eye to this devastating taxpayer-funded

drug trafficking?

Hon. D. Eby: I had the opportunity to visit the New Roads treatment centre in Saanich. There I

met a young man named Tyson, who described how five months ago he was a broken man

in a jail cell. Thanks to the efforts of New Roads, the staff there and the community,

he's on a better path. I think that's the goal.

I heard the member for Surrey South talk about a gentlemen from White Rock. That's

the goal we all have for people struggling with mental health or addiction issues.

The goal is to keep them alive.

Now, there was a point when all the parties in this place agreed that we have to try

different things — we've got almost 13,000 people who died as a result of the toxic

drug crisis — and we will continue to do that work. It has required refinement, as

we said it would, as we all agreed it would.

We've taken the steps necessary to protect parks, communities, businesses and bus

stops and also, most importantly, the people, the brothers, the sisters, the aunts,

the uncles, the parents, the kids that are struggling with addiction.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, I'd like to assure the Premier that the Health Committee didn't endorse buckets

of pills on the streets. Apparently, the only people endorsing that approach are the

Premier and his minister.

There is undeniable photographic evidence, yet this Premier and his NDP government

continue to fuel the NDP taxpayer-funded drug crisis. On Reddit, there's talk of dealers

obtaining "literal buckets," with alarming comments about the NDP government handing

them out like candy and throwing them around like tic tacs. Reddit users openly discuss

how the so-called safe supply recipients sell their dillies to purchase fentanyl.

How much longer will the Premier ignore the solutions offered by a plan like ours,

where better is possible, and stop funding rampant drug traffickers?

Hon. D. Eby: What an embarrassment. You know, this member sat on the all-party committee and understands

the complexity and the challenge of this issue.

No one in this place supports buckets of any kind of illicit drug that caused the

kind of havoc that opioids do. This government sued the producers of those opioid

pills, successfully, leading all the provinces across Canada to the largest settlement

in Canada.

Interjections.

Hon. D. Eby: Absolutely, in Canadian history.

Not only that, we're taking action on the illegal drug dealers as well. The RCMP in

September of this year — six suspects, one of the largest drug busts in B.C. history,

$256 million worth of fentanyl. The last two convicted each got 11 years in jail.

In March, $13 million in drugs, guns and cash for an arrest. We seized the Hell's

Angels clubhouses, and we're keeping them.

[2:00 p.m.]

For the member to pretend that we are anything other than going after the drug dealers,

whether they work for the big pharma companies or whether they work for the criminal

gangs, is completely false.

Mr. Speaker: Member, Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: Well, let me be clear with the Premier. What the Health Committee did discuss was

how to try to keep people alive, not endorsing a situation that's leading to increased

addiction and potentially death.

Under this Premier's direction, directly due to his policies, cheap hydromorphone

is creating new dependencies in people who were not previously addicted. Its street

value has plummeted by up to 95 percent, and that is a direct result of the NDP government

flooding the market. These cheap drugs are promoted to teenagers as being safe. Desperate

parents are calling MLA offices multiple times a week stating that their child, believing

they were taking a safe supply, is now addicted.

Will the Premier do the right thing and end this NDP taxpayer-funded drug crisis that

is causing devastating harms?

Hon. D. Eby: We continue to work with the public health officials. We're working with front-line

addictions doctors on how to respond to this crisis. We're going to continue to do

that work.

I would say that the goal here is to keep people alive. I agree with the member on

that. I agree that was the goal of the committee. That is a shared goal of this House,

and to pretend that there's some kind of division where, actually, parties in this

House want people to be addicted, want them to die of overdose, want kids to start

new addictions is absurd.

The member has been in this place long enough that she should be embarrassed to stand

up….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members will come to order.

Members.

Hon. D. Eby: The members across the way watched surveillance video of drug dealers bringing bags

of cash into B.C. casinos for a generation and didn't take action. So with all due

respect, we are the party that's taken action on organized crime and drug dealing

by getting physicians and nurses between predatory dealers and people struggling with

addiction.

We're going to keep doing that work. We're going to make sure to help people deal

with addiction.

T. Stone: It is absolutely stunning that this Premier refuses to acknowledge the problem that

is a diversion that's taking place across British Columbia. So let me bring it back

to a real person that's been impacted.

Now, the photos on Reddit tell the story of the NDP's taxpayer-funded drug crisis,

as online platforms have become easy gateways for our youth to access these taxpayer-funded

drugs. That's exactly what happened to 13-year-old Kamilah Sword and her friends,

according to Kamilah's father. Her father says: "I got blindsided…. I didn't understand

how easy it was for these girls to get it."

Now, after first becoming addicted to hydromorphone, young 13-year-old Kamilah tragically

passed away. She overdosed.

To the Premier, how many more lives like Kamilah's will be lost before this Premier

admits the harm caused by the NDP's taxpayer-funded drug crisis?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. J. Whiteside: I want to thank the member for the question and to express, I trust, on behalf of

the entire House, our deep condolences to Kamilah's father for the grief that he is

enduring and, I know, will endure for the rest of his life.

We understand there are particular challenges that children and youth are facing.

We are working very hard with health authorities, with front-line partners to scale

up access to child and youth mental health services. We have substantially expanded

our Foundry network of primary care and mental health services.

We are developing integrated child care youth teams that work in schools with MCFD

and with our health care system to intervene and provide opportunities to connect

kids to care. Our primary consideration is to ensure that children and youth have

the access to the care that they need.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[2:05 p.m.]

T. Stone: Well, with all due respect to the minister, the government's plans on this front are

failing miserably. I can speak to a youth detox facility in Kamloops where the government

made, with a lot of fanfare, a big announcement around five detox beds for youth many,

many months ago.

The member for Kamloops–North Thompson and I were in there not long ago. We were walking

around. We were being shown the space. The bed is there and all of the facility. It's

all ready to go. There's one thing missing: there's no youth in those beds because

there's no staff for them. The policy is a failure, and the minister knows it.

Online platforms like Reddit and Snapchat are the front lines of the NDP's taxpayer-funded

drug crisis, offering children and teenagers easy access to these highly addictive

drugs. The heartbreaking loss of young Kamilah should have served as a wake-up call

on the dangers of describing these drugs as safe supply, yet there's been zero accountability,

no warnings, no educational campaigns, no tracking. This NDP government has failed

in its most basic duty to protect the public, especially children and youth like Kamilah.

How many more tragedies does it take for the Premier to be accountable and to accept

responsibility for the NDP's taxpayer-funded drug crisis?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I have to say, with all due respect, it's a bit rich coming from the party that closed

the only youth detox centre in Chilliwack when they were on this side of the House,

to talk about access that children and youth need, access that we are funding and

that we are scaling up.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We agree it is really critical that we work with experts, that we work with the education

system and the health care system to ensure that we are talking to youth about substance

use in these times, in the context of a toxic drug crisis that has stolen thousands

and thousands of lives of British Columbians. We really have to pay attention to how

we're talking to youth. The Education Ministry and my ministry are working very closely

together, along with front-line providers.

We have the Foundry services in, working with school districts to provide targeted

education to kids about this very topic. It's work that we are expanding. I absolutely

agree; how we are talking to youth is very important.

CHILD PROTECTION SYSTEM AND

CHILDREN AND FAMILY DEVELOPMENT

MINISTRY ACCOUNTABILITY

A. Olsen: The B.C. NDP government must at least hold themselves to the same standard as they

held government when they were in opposition.

When the B.C. NDP were led by John Horgan in opposition, they set an appropriate standard.

When a Minister of Children and Family Development repeatedly fails to protect the most vulnerable children in our

province, they must step aside. The current minister thought highly of the former

Premier, and the words of John Horgan to the former minister on September 28 are as

applicable today as they were then.

He said: "In light of the pattern over the past few months, hon. Speaker, through

you to the minister, how is it possible that you can continue to believe that you

have the leadership skills…to navigate…this sensitive ministry and stop protecting

the ministry and start protecting children?"

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member for the question. Again, as I said last week, I understand

his passion and his concern, and I share that as well.

As the minister, I have been and will continue to be determined to drive transformative

change through my role as minister. That means through legislation, through policy,

through budgetary measures. For example, we passed legislation last year to support

Indigenous jurisdiction.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: That had very little to do with the actual question that I was asking. It's about

the leadership of the entire ministry.

That September 2015, the B.C. NDP were questioning the former minister about the death

of a young man in her care. B.C. NDP stood member after member, day after day. Horgan,

James, Donaldson, Mungall, Simpson — all stood and called for the minister to step

aside.

That was eight years ago. Despite claims that the minister just made that this ministry

is undergoing transformation, reports continue rolling in describing the awful neglect

and harm that this ministry is causing. Incredibly, the minister agrees with the criticism,

offers a weak apology and then stubbornly flouts the long tradition of responsible

governance.

[2:10 p.m.]

If she won't go on her own, then we need unwavering leadership from the Premier to

do what is right. But, so far, this Premier waivers, waiting until the timing works

for him, putting his political agenda against the welfare of our children.

To the Premier, will he do the right thing and replace his minister and her senior

staff at the Ministry of Children and Family Development?

Hon. M. Dean: Thank you to the member. As soon as the ministry learned of the problems in the particular

foster home 2½ years ago, action was taken.

The ministry made sure that all of the children that team was responsible for were

seen and that their placements were safe and nurturing and loving. All of those placement

decisions were reviewed, and other steps have been taken to increase accountability

and to increase oversight as well. Extra checks and extra layers have been put in.

I directed staff. I said to them: "You need to be able to show me that all of the

children and youth in our care are safe and are being loved and being well taken care

of."

Interjection.

Mr. Speaker: Member. Member for Surrey South.

Hon. M. Dean: Every single year the Ministry of Children and Family Development under the NDP government

has seen an increase in its budget. We're supporting young people and diverting them

away from the highway to homelessness. We're supporting young people, children and

youth actually living in out-of-care placements, unlike under the previous government

where the budget was gutted.

POLICE SERVICES IN SURREY

B. Banman: This morning I received a petition from over 40,000 Surrey residents and taxpayers

who are asking this government to keep the Royal Canadian Mounted Police in Surrey.

I am told that the NDP previous Premier, John Horgan, was given this petition, but

he refused to address it in this House.

Today, as the House Leader for the Conservative Party of British Columbia, who does

listen to taxpayers, I am speaking on behalf of…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Shhh.

B. Banman: …the 40,000 Surrey residents and taxpayers who have signed this petition, who have

been outright ignored by this NDP government. I'm holding a fraction of those in my

hand. I am asking this government to listen to these 40,000 Surrey residents, who

will be footing the increased property tax bill to pay for the city of Surrey to have

its own police force.

Will this new NDP Premier commit here and now to holding a referendum on policing

in Surrey, or will he continue the NDP's long-standing policy of bullying and ignoring

Surrey residents and taxpayers?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

B. Banman: This NDP Premier isn't just bullying Surrey taxpayers. He isn't ignoring just Surrey

taxpayers. His authoritarian approach is actually punishing taxpayers and communities

all across British Columbia.

In my home community of Abbotsford, the taxpayer share of the $150 million this NDP

government is spending works out to over $4½ million — $4½ million that could be better

spent in their community.

What does this Premier have to say to hard-working Abbotsford residents and beyond

who are now also on the hook to pay for the absolute mess his government has created

in the city of Surrey by ignoring and bullying Surrey taxpayers and voters?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I'd just like to remind him, before I answer

the bulk of his question, that the province gave the city of Abbotsford more than

$27 million from the Building B.C. infrastructure fund earlier this year.

I'd also like to take the opportunity to point out to the member that what Surrey

wanted to do was to transition back to the RCMP after they were already well into

a transition to the Surrey police service.

[2:15 p.m.]

The analysis shows, by the experts within my ministry and outside my ministry, that

the challenge for communities is the impact that transition of the largest RCMP detachment

would have in communities right across this province.

I can tell the member that when the decision was made to continue with the Surrey

police service, I heard from communities right across this province, including your

own community of Abbotsford, that the decision I made was the right decision in terms

of public safety, not only for Surrey but for all of British Columbia.

DRUG TOXICITY CRISIS AND

MANAGEMENT OF SAFE SUPPLY

P. Milobar: Earlier we heard the Premier and the Mental Health and Addictions Minister do what

they do best in this chamber, and that's try to point fingers everywhere else but

take their own responsibility.

I'll point out to the minister that Kamilah was six years old when this government

took office. When she overdosed at 13 and perished…. It's this government's failures

and policy that we're talking about here today. It's this government's policies and

their failures that are impacting people in the here and the now.

Taxpayer-funded drug trafficking thrives on platforms like Reddit, and that's well

known now. Tens of thousands of hydromorphone pills are openly being sold. In B.C.,

it's reported that drug traffickers have assembled teams of safe supply clients who

sell their 32 daily pills directly outside the pharmacies back to the dealers for

50 cents a pill. The dealers then amass tens of thousands of pills. They've trafficked

them across the country, and they make huge profits.

How much longer will the Premier continue to fuel the NDP's taxpayer-funded drug trafficking

crisis?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thanks to the member for the question. I just want to remind the House that our work

with respect to providing prescribed alternatives to the illicit toxic drug supply,

which was declared a public emergency in 2016 and which took over 2,300 British Columbian

lives last year….

That program came into being at the beginning of the pandemic, largely in response

to what we knew would be dramatic impacts on the ability of individuals to reach out

to health care, to continue to have health care supports, and out of concern for public

health that there would be an even more dramatic impact during the COVID pandemic

as a result of the toxic drug supply.

That program is under review by the provincial health officer so that we can ensure

that it meets the needs that people have today, given that we're no longer in the

in the grips of the COVID-19 pandemic.

But I would say that the importance of having a mechanism to come between predatory

drug dealers who prey on vulnerable people and having our health care system able

to intervene and support individuals…. That's the objective of the program. That's

what we're working on with our health authorities, with front-line providers, with

public health. It's the work we'll continue to do.

Mr. Speaker: Member on a supplemental.

P. Milobar: These taxpayer-supplied addictive drugs have become a commodity to trade for fentanyl,

the very drug that the program is supposed to be trying to combat. The diversion fuels

the taxpayer-funded drug crisis. It leads to more addiction and is creating new dependencies

in young people who weren't previously addicted.

The evidence is very clear. We need a dramatic shift, and B.C. United's Better is

Possible plan is that shift. It prioritizes treatment and recovery.

When will the Premier actually focus on recovery and treatment and abandon this flawed

taxpayer-funded drug crisis?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I do want to assure the House that our Pathway to Hope is all about treatment. It

is all about supporting people where they are at on their journey to recovery.

Since 2017, we've opened over 400 treatment beds. We are in the process right now

of procuring in excess of 100 beds. We have just started the work to open a seamless

model of care, right from detoxing and stabilization through to treatment, at St.

Paul's Hospital.

We have invested in free or low-barrier community counselling grants, hundreds of

millions of dollars into upstream investments in child and youth mental health, all

designed to try to create pathways to care and improved access for British Columbians

to the care that we know they need.

[2:20 p.m.]

We were just up in New Roads talking about the beds that we've supported to continue

to be in place there. There is remarkable work happening by our health authorities

to provide virtual access, outpatient access, same-day clinical assessment and connection

to care through Vancouver's Access Central. That's the work we're going to continue

to do.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO

DRUG USER ORGANIZATIONS

M. de Jong: The experiment is failing. However genuine the intention and motivation may have been,

the government's approach is condemning more young people to a life of dependency

and a risk of death.

What else do we know? We know that instead of prioritizing treatment and recovery,

the government decided to divert over $1 million to two organizations: the Drug Users

Liberation Front and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users. The Liberation Front,

apparently, took that money, and it enabled them to buy heroin, cocaine and methamphetamines

from organized crime on the dark web. That's taxpayer-funded drug trafficking, by

any definition.

Will the Premier, confronted by this evidence, immediately order a full forensic audit

of every penny that went to those organizations?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I just want to reiterate the pain that communities are in as people watch hundreds

of their friends and community members impacted and die as a result of a volatile,

unrelenting toxic drug crisis that poses one of the most wicked problems for our health

care system.

I have seen doctors, nurses and outreach workers put so much into trying to find innovative

ways to make sure that they can reach out to people and connect them to the care and

treatment that they need.

I will say that I think we all know peer organizations are an important part of the

continuum of services that we provide. Having said that, of course we absolutely expect

that government's partners act in a lawful manner. So the contract between Vancouver

Coastal Health and the organization the member is referring to has been terminated.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

M. de Jong: This Liberation Front has admitted that taxpayers' money, provided by this NDP government,

was used to establish a facility that was central to its drug trafficking activities.

They could then divert other funds to acquire cryptocurrency, which they used to buy

illegal drugs from the dark web — that haven for organized crime gangs and drug cartels.

Taxpayers' money is being used to make the drug crisis worse, not better.

I'll ask again. Confronted by the evidence — apparently, the decision to shut it down

— will the minister and the Premier commit to a full audit to determine what exactly

these public funds were used for?

Hon. J. Whiteside: I would just say that contrary to those claims, what we know is that the Vancouver

Coastal Health Authority contracted with the organization explicitly to provide drug

checking, overdose prevention training, harm reduction services and per diems for

Indigenous peer workers. We know that those are the services that were provided.

Having said that — and understanding, as we all do, that those are critical services

to keep people alive and to connect them to care — again, we expect that partners

will operate in a lawful manner. In this case, Vancouver Coastal has terminated the

contract with the organization.

[2:25 p.m.]

DRUG TOXICITY CRISIS AND

MANAGEMENT OF SAFE SUPPLY

E. Sturko: Well, that's why we needed an audit. The reality is that this government partnered

with an organization that was buying illicit drugs off the dark web and then bragging

about it through the media. There hasn't been any police investigation. There hasn't

even been any looking into it by this government. They didn't, begrudgingly, withdraw

the funding to this organization till it was brought up by the official opposition.

This is a government that will give you everything for free related to using drugs,

except for treatment and aftercare, absolutely. Medical professionals, front-line

workers and even the B.C. United have been raising red flags, urgently warning about

the dangers of diversion from the NDP's so-called safe supply, yet rather than stopping

or even halting and pausing this failed program, the government's answer is: "Hey,

let's flood the streets with even more drugs."

Treatment, recovery and providing a clear pathway away from addiction has to be the

priority, but the NDP approach does not offer any off-ramps to recovery. The question

is: when will the Premier end this taxpayer-funded drug crisis that's creating an

endless cycle of drug dependency?

Hon. J. Whiteside: Thanks to the member for the question. We understand how critical it is that we are

able to meet people — who are struggling with substance use, who have addiction issues

— where they're at and connect them to the care and support that they need. That's

why we've covered opioid agonist therapy through our PharmaCare program. It's universal.

That's why we're responding to all of the advice that we get from front-line physicians,

from nurses, from people in public health in our health care system about what they

need in order to better care for their patients. Access to OAT is one of those. We've

made it accessible through PharmaCare.

We have over 100 treatment beds that are available free, with no cost attached to

them, and that, again, are available through health authorities. We've introduced

low-barrier and, sometimes, no-fee community counselling in order to provide better

access to the kinds of supports that people need.

That is work we are doing, faced with a system that was fundamentally deregulated,

privatized and underfunded for years. That's a system of care that we are building

to ensure that British Columbians get access to the care and support they need, when

they need it.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the Ombudsperson's Annual Report 2022-23 .

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call, in Committee of the Whole, Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call, in Committee of the Whole, Bill 31, Emergency and

Disaster Management Act.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 36; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued) .

The Chair: We'll call the committee to order. We're discussing Bill 36, Police Amendment Act,

M. Morris: We left after a long afternoon last week on clause 2.

I'll make sure that I'll try and colour within the lines with respect to the minister's

sensitivities around the JR that's been implemented by the city of Surrey. I'm going

to go back to, basically, where we left off last week.

During committee stage last week, the minister responded to my question on whether

or not any municipality was not meeting their duties and responsibilities under

section

15(1) as referenced under clause 2 of this bill. The minister responded that it is

not about whether a community is meeting its responsibility under

section 15, but

it's whether or not communities that are under a proposed transition, whether their

proposal would adversely impact

section 15 — if I've got that right.

Now, turning to

section 3.1(2)(b), I need a little more clarification as to how the

minister arrives at the determination that a proposed transition would adversely affect

the ability of the municipality to fulfil their respective duties under

section 15(1),

outside of the metrics used to measure crime rates, caseloads, clearance rates, etc.

I'm just looking at: what other criteria does the minister use to make that determination

that the proposal adversely affects the future of policing in the respective municipality?

Long question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member.

I want to take this opportunity just to reference a couple of points that were made,

and it may well relate to what the member is talking about. There were two points

that were raised in particular last week.

One of them was: should a bill be stood down, given it relates to a judicial review

or other legal proceeding? As I noted during our earlier debate, we will not be standing

down the legislation as a result of the judicial review. The business of the Legislature

would be thwarted and undermined if a person could bring legislation to a halt by

commencing an action that related to the subject matter of the legislation.

[2:35 p.m.]

I'd like to take this opportunity to remind the committee of the Campbell case in

1999, when three opposition members brought a challenge against the B.C. and the federal

government respecting the proposed treaty with the Nisga'a Nation. The challenge was

brought before governments had ratified the treaty by way of the settlement legislation.

The plaintiffs applied to the court to set a trial date. At the time of the plaintiffs'

application, the government had introduced legislation to implement the treaty, but

the legislation had not yet passed second reading.

Mr. Justice Williamson denied the request and ruled that it would be inappropriate

to set a trial date in advance of the settlement legislation being passed by the provincial

and federal governments. In his ruling, he said the following respecting the independent

roles of both the Legislature and the judiciary.

He said:

"Under our system of government, it is essential that the courts respect the right

of parliament and of the legislative assemblies to exercise unfettered freedom in

the formulation, tabling, amendment and passage of legislation. This obligation is

no less than that of the duty of the legislative and executive branches to respect

and define the independence of the judiciary. These are matters fundamental to our

democratic beliefs, our history and our constitution, and they should not be impinged

upon lightly, if at all."

That relates to the question that we were talking about in terms of whether or not

to stand down the legislation.

In regards to what the member has just raised, and it was the subject of the discussion

we had –– and I know that it was related to the issue of Surrey –– I just want to

say this. Regarding my decision in respect of the Surrey police transition, I note

that these questions are not directly relevant to debate of this bill. However, they

are of interest to the members, so I would like to provide some details now in the

hope that the remainder of our debate will focus on the details of the bill.

I decided that in order to ensure adequate and effective policing in the city of Surrey

and the province as a whole, the city must continue its transition to the Surrey police

service. Unfortunately, due to the pending judicial review commenced by the city of

Surrey, I am not able to discuss the specific considerations that inform my decision.

However, I can share the following excerpt from the decision letter provided to Surrey:

"The adequate and effective level of policing required by the Police Act mandates

that a sufficient number of trained officers are available to meet the jurisdiction's

policing needs and ensure public safety. The recent decision by Surrey city council

to return to the RCMP without a plan to ensure the stability of the Surrey police

service has destabilized policing in that jurisdiction and has subsequent implications

for policing the rest of the province."

It is my duty to ensure that the citizens of Surrey are safe and have confidence in

an adequate and effective level of policing and that decisions in one jurisdiction

do not have a negative impact on policing in the province as a whole. Therefore, that's

why the decision was made.

That relates, I believe, to the question that the member just had, which is there

are a whole range of matters that are taken into account, not just, as we talked about

last week, as the member was talking about, caseload and crime rates, but things such

as staffing levels. How would you restaff? Impacts on other communities and other

parts of the province.

All of those things are part and parcel of a decision that would go into what we are

talking about, adequate and effective policing.

M. Morris: I appreciate the minister's explanation on that, and I do look forward to the clarification

provided by the JR that will be forthcoming on a number of these issues that we've

been talking about with this amendment.

I did ask the question last week, and I'd like to ask it again for clarity. Has the

minister availed himself of any research reports conducted by the director of police

services under

section 40 that have led him to include the provisions of

section 312(

b) in this bill?

The director of police services has a number of responsibilities that I'm aware of.

I'm just curious to see whether the minister has or whether the director of police

services has surfaced any issues prior to the transition taking place with Surrey

that has added content to this particular bill.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The reality is that what's in the bill here is based on

the experience that has occurred during the transition, to ensure that a future Solicitor

General does not have to experience the challenges and the difficulties that this

has caused.

M. Morris: My next question, then, would be: is this the only transition that the minister has

been presented with over the last seven years? Or are there other examples of where

this lack of clarity, I suppose, has had implications on municipalities over 5,000?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is the first time we've had a transition and then a proposed reversal. Given

the size of the transition and the potential size of the reversal, that's why this

legislation is coming forward.

M. Morris: I appreciate that response. The average transition…. Just to be clear, as the minister

describes, the purpose of the bill is all based on the experiences the ministry has

encountered with the proposed Surrey transition from the RCMP to a municipal police

force.

How many other transitions has the province experienced, and perhaps had some complications

with, in transitioning 5,000-and-over communities throughout the province?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. What we found are a couple of things. Some communities

do find challenges as they're approaching the 5,000 threshold or just going over the

5,000 threshold. This act provides clarity not only for them but also for government

in ways forward.

The issue is also cropping up not just here but in other parts of the country as well.

That's one of the reasons why, at the federal level, there is now a commissioner position,

officer, whose sole task is dealing with transitions, not just here but in other parts

of the country as well.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer. So whose responsibility is it to do the analysis of the information

that the minister requires for making a decision under

section 3.1(2)(b)? Is it the

municipalities? Is it the police board? Is it the police services branch themselves?

Whose shoulders does that fall under, at the end of the day?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the local government coming up with what they want to do and working with

the director of police services, who would look at it.

M. Morris: I appreciate that.

Turning now to subsection 3.1(3), it states that the municipalities, the police boards,

the municipal police departments and the RCMP must provide information plans or records

the minister requires to make a decision under subsection (2).

If the minister receives any information that suggests that an adverse impact to the

municipality's transition is imminent, what steps does the minister take to follow

up with that agency or that municipality that provided him with such information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We would receive the information, obviously, from the local government. It would be

analyzed. If shortcomings were identified, you would then give the local government

the opportunity to provide the information in terms of dealing with those shortcomings.

M. Morris: Are there any structured timelines for this? Oftentimes it takes a little while to

gather up information. The analysis takes time, depending on the level of expertise

required to make that analysis. How much time does the minister consider reasonable

in responding to complex issues or concerns?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's no set structured time. Each case is different, depending on the local government

and the circumstances that they find themselves in.

M. Morris: Has the minister…? I guess we only have Surrey as an example to use. It's the impetus

behind this. Has the minister gone back to the municipality for clarification or additional

information and that information has not been forthcoming?

Vice versa. Has the municipality come to the police services branch for additional

information and, for whatever reason, that information has not exchanged hands?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I pointed out a moment ago, we would receive information. We would point out if

there were deficiencies and then expect those deficiencies to be addressed.

I think that one of the critical issues, why this clause is here in terms of legislation,

is that the minister should not have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. It was that

experience that resulted in the creation of this particular section, which is to be

able to get all the information that is required that you have questions about. That

really is why this is here.

M. Morris: I appreciate that, and I've got my thoughts on non-disclosure agreements.

I'm just curious, though. Has the minister required any non-disclosure acknowledgment

on the information that he has released to the municipalities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes. When I receive, let's say, confidential information from

the RCMP, I cannot release that information without their permission. So that kind

of information, for example, would be redacted. It's not my information to release.

That confidential information is the RCMP's, or, in fact, it would be any police agency's.

M. Morris: Would that same rationale not apply to municipalities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, because what they're doing is providing information for me to be able to make

a decision, and it would not be confidential police information.

M. Morris: I certainly understand that. I guess from a municipality's perspective, they also

are required to make decisions as to what they're going to do and how they're going

to make that particular transition. So I won't belabour the point. I do see some parallels

in arguments between the province and the municipalities as well.

In addition to determining adequate and effective police resources, does the minister

also include the numbers of unsworn civilians providing clerical and other support

for sworn officers in the department?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago, we take a broad range of considerations. It depends on each

particular case. Every circumstance is different.

M. Morris: I'm certainly aware of that. When I look at a transition from an RCMP–based service

to an independent municipal police force, when I look at the resources that the RCMP

would have available, for an example, with CFSEU, with the division administrative

services, with the forensic identification, with our lab services or with the RCMP

lab services, there are a number of resources embedded within those different agencies.

I know that there are police forces that are combined units throughout the Lower Mainland,

but is that taken into consideration as well?

The RCMP is a national police force that has access to untold number of resources

and expertise in just about any field you want. There needs to be a balance there.

Is that taken into consideration, as well, by the ministry?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I'll just reiterate that, as I said, there's a wide range of considerations

taken into account in terms of a transition.

I'd also make the point that whether it's RCMP or independent municipal police forces,

they all do amazing work and have access to resources. As the member is well aware,

there's a lot of integration that takes place — IHIT, for example, being one that

comes at top of mind; CFSEU; all of those things. Whether it's RCMP or municipal,

I think everybody wants to ensure that as much cooperation is taking place as possible.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer. In circumstances where clarity is needed with information,

does the minister or has the minister met personally with the heads of the provincial

police force, the municipal chiefs involved or the municipalities involved to clarify

any of those concerns before they go off the rails?

[3:00 p.m.]

The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll call the committee back to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Under the act, there would be the formal notification taking place by way of letter.

But obviously, as practice, you would of course meet with the parties who are engaged

in a transition, for example.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: When I look at the issue with Surrey…. There are probably other examples out there.

I look at the Community Charter and the provision under…. I believe it's

section 2

of the charter, where it says the provincial government and municipalities should

attempt to resolve conflicts between them by consultation, negotiation, facilitation

and other forms of dispute resolution.

I'm just wondering if the minister wants to or is able to comment on the steps that

he has taken to follow the advice provided in the Community Charter and the issue

that has led to this particular bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have really said what I am able to say in terms of the Surrey situation. What I

can tell you is….

Look, this is the act, and this is how we intend to move forward with it.

M. Morris: I appreciate that.

What happens if, once the minister has made a determination under subsection (4),

new information comes to light, by any of the entities required to report under subsection

(3), that fundamentally changes the proposal and addresses the concerns the minister

had with respect to the adverse impacts or, conversely, identifies new adverse impacts

to the entities identified under subsection (3)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If I had said no to a proposal and then, under this act, let's say, they came up with

new information, then they could submit a new proposal.

M. Morris: Am I understanding they could submit a revised proposal? Is that what I'm hearing?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I think it's fair to say that given you're wanting to make

a transition…. That's a pretty serious thing that you want to do, and there would

have been thorough analysis of that and all the different factors that go into that.

Then to come back and say, "Oh, we've got some new information…." It would have to

be really significant and substantive information to say, "Hey, look at this again,"

once a decision has been made. You could come back and ask, but that would be very,

very challenging.

M. Morris: I don't see anything in the act that would allow that. Is it assumed that this opportunity

would exist?

Once the minister has made the order under this particular legislation…. He has directed

the director of police services to superintend that transition. If this substantial

information comes up that could change the outcome of the direction, is there existing

legislation that would allow that to take place?

I can't see anything in there where the minister can rescind his decision under that

particular subsection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it would be fair to say, given the importance of the decision, the rigour

that goes into the analysis…. The reality is, in practice, that once a decision is

made, the decision is made.

M. Morris: That leads me to my next question.

Subsection (4), in addition to

section 3.2, in my view, is the hammer in this amendment

that gives the minister and the director of police services, basically, an arbitrary

power over the municipality.

I look at

section 3 of the Community Charter. It outlines that the purpose of the

charter is to provide municipalities with the "legal framework for the powers, duties

and functions that are necessary to fulfil their purposes," provide "the authority

and discretion to address existing and future community needs" and provide "the flexibility

to determine the public interest of their communities and to respond to the different

needs and changing circumstances of their communities."

I see this is a little bit…. It's not in harmony with that, in my humble opinion.

Under

section 2 of the charter…. "The relationship between municipalities and the

provincial government is based on the following principles: (

a) the provincial government

respects municipal authority and municipalities respect provincial authority" — it's

a two-way street — "(

b) the provincial government must not assign responsibilities

to municipalities unless there is provision for resources required to fulfil the responsibilities."

[3:30 p.m.]

I throw that out there because a lot of times these decisions and, perhaps, these

orders will end up costing the municipalities significantly more in dollars and, perhaps,

resources, as well, to fulfil those obligations.

Is the minister at all concerned? Has he received advice that there is no conflict

with the Community Charter with respect to the hammer sections of subsection (4) and

section 3.2?

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to policing, local government is governed by the Police Act and not

by the Community Charter.

M. Morris: I appreciate the Police Act does apply. Under the Police Act, the municipality has

the option to choose whether they go with a municipal police force or opt to employ

the provincial police force under contract, which many of them do. There are 31 RCMP

municipal contracts over 15,000 population that use that. That is an authority that

exists within the Police Act that allows them to do that.

So by an arbitrary order coming from the minister, and I understand he takes into

consideration the adequacy and effectiveness of the service delivered, is it usurping

some of the some of the authority by invoking this particular amendment?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Is it usurping some of the authority of a municipality to provide the services that

they feel are best for their community?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This

section really is for municipalities who are just crossing that threshold over

the 5,000. The other point I'd like to make is that it would not be an arbitrary decision.

There would be a lot of rigour applied to analysis and to any use of this section.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Morris: No, I appreciate that. Circumstances change with municipalities.

Under the Charter, under

section 2(2)(c), it says, "consultation is needed on matters

of mutual interest, including consultation by the Provincial government on proposed

changes to local government legislation" and "proposed changes to Provincial programs

that will have a significant impact in relation to matters that are within municipal

authority."

I'm just wondering what consultation has taken place with the mayor and council of

Surrey with respect to the powers that are being imposed under subsections (4) and

3.2 of the amendments here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think I answered that question earlier on with my remarks that I made around Surrey.

M. Morris: I will review that.

Those are all the questions I have on clause 2.

Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

M. Morris: I'm just curious why the minister chose to remove the reference to

section 15, which

outlines the duty of a municipality to provide policing under this new amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was an unnecessary reference that was removed during housekeeping drafting of the

legislation.

M. Morris: An unnecessary reference as a housekeeping measure. So is it…? I know section…. I

don't have it right in front of me here. Why has the minister determined that it's

an unnecessary reference to the duties and responsibilities of a municipality in providing

police services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because that continues to be addressed in

section 15 of the Police Act.

M. Morris: Those are all the questions I have on clause 5.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

M. Morris: Under

section 39, the director of policing already has the authority to superintend

policing. This probably does clarify that the director of policing is charged with

carrying out the minister's orders, but what is the process to be followed by a municipality

if they disagree with the direction being imposed by the director of police services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would bring it to my attention as minister.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Morris: Then what? What transpires after that? Is there formal discussion? Is there a hearing?

What takes place after that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would bring it to my attention. Then I would go back to the director of police

services and discuss it with the director of police services. Then there would be

the ability, particularly in certain circumstances, where I could say that on that

particular piece, I could overrule the director of police services.

M. Morris: Can individual decisions made by the director of police services — in superintending

the transition, or whatever role that he might be performing at the time — be subject

to judicial review as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is not a decision. This is direction on how to implement; it's not a decision.

That would be the response I would give to the member's question.

M. Morris: So it's a direction. What if the municipality disagrees with the direction? The minister

says it's not a decision; it's a direction. I'm just looking for the process. If the

municipality disagrees, then the same thing could apply to the police board or the

provincial police force. It's the same thing.

If the director of police services, in superintending, provides direction to any of

these entities that have been mentioned in these amendments, what recourse do they

have if they don't agree with the direction provided by the director of police services?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It has to be a statutory decision for it to be the subject of a judicial review, and

a direction is not that.

M. Morris: If the statutory provision is provided by the order that this act provides, where

the minister can make an order, and the director of police services, in his role as

superintending that order, provides direction, would that actually fall under the

order as a statutory order? Would that be reviewable?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the member could clarify how the question he's asking is relevant to clause 6,

that would be of some assistance.

M. Morris: Under clause 6, the director is given the role of superintending the orders that the

minister, under the previous sections that we've talked about, imposes upon municipalities

for the transition. In enforcing those orders of the minister, the superintendent

provides direction to any of those entities that were mentioned under that particular

clause.

If those entities disagree with a specific order or a specific direction within that

order, I'm looking for what recourse they have. If it can't be resolved in discussion

with the director and the minister, would that order be reviewable as a JR under the

statutory order of the minister?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is that it's a direction; it's not an order. As a result, it's not

JR-able.

M. Morris: That concludes my questions for clause 6.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. Morris: This clause is directly related to Surrey. With respect to subsection (2), it states,

"Despite the Police Act, the City of Surrey must provide policing and law enforcement

by the means referred to in

section 3 (2) (

a) of that Act." It's the order that the

city of Surrey must provide a municipal police service despite the Police Act.

I have to wrap my head around this. The Police Act provides authority for the municipality

to choose what type of police service they have. This particular clause removes any

other aspect of the Police Act with respect to providing a police service.

[3:50 p.m.]

They must focus, then, on

section 3(2)(

a) of the act only. They don't have any other

choice. Is that the way I'm reading that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The reason it says "despite" is because this is a transitional provision that will

never be in the Police Act.

M. Morris: So with respect to this particular transition, Surrey no longer has the option to

look at any other means of policing other than what the minister has ordered for the

service under

section 3(2)(

a) of the act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

M. Morris: It states under sub (3) that the city of Surrey is required to provide policing and

law enforcement referred to in subsection (2), and that model is "deemed to have been

approved by the minister." Considering the fact that these amendments could be in

conflict with the Community Charter, and the fact that Surrey is exercising its right

to judicial review, the term "deemed" is speculative at best, I think.

Does the minister intend on pushing this forward without benefit of clear direction

from the judicial review process itself?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I believe I answered that in my opening comments to our discussion today.

M. Morris: Possibly. These transition provisions are directly focused on Surrey. I know that

there's a judicial review taking place here. I guess the JR is going to provide the

clarity that we're looking for under this particular process here.

For certainty, as this committee discussion has shown, in my estimation, the minister

has not adequately identified the public safety risks that he claims are driving this

aggressive approach to forcing a municipal policing model on Surrey. The municipality

of Surrey has met its duties and responsibilities under

section 15(1), and this is

supported by years of statistical data indicating that Surrey is a safe community

with, actually, one of the lowest crime rates in the province here.

I guess I'll just ask one more time what additional rationale the minister is relying

upon that has driven him to implement such an arbitrary measure against Surrey. I

think the citizens of Surrey need to know why the minister feels that public safety

under the current model is significantly at risk for the citizens of Surrey.

The RCMP is a national police force. If they have provided the minister with information….

I understand that whatever the RCMP provides the minister is confidential between

the minister and the RCMP. But I listened to the commissioner of the RCMP, when he

was out here on a recent visit to British Columbia, talk about, in a very calm manner,

the future of the RCMP in British Columbia and the RCMP across the country.

I've had discussions with senior RCMP leadership in the province that indicate that

the transition to maintain the RCMP and the resources necessary are no hurdles for

the RCMP to meet. So I've received conflicting information. Perhaps the JR is the

only way that we'll find exactly what that information is and what the final outcome

will be.

[3:55 p.m.]

Would the minister be willing to comment on the information that he's received that

has led to this arbitrary direction that he's imposed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's question. I appreciate his remarks.

I will make two points. First, the decision is in no way, shape or form arbitrary.

There's a lot of work, analysis by professionals within my ministry on this. A significant

amount of work has gone into this, so I would reject the use of the term "arbitrary."

That being said, I would also outline that I have said what I can say in terms of

Surrey at the beginning of my comments. I think I outlined them there for the member,

and that's all I will say at this point.

M. Morris: I appreciate that, and I do understand the position that the minister is in here,

so with respect, I've been asking these questions. With respect to

section 8 under

this clause, what credentials does the administrator need in order to be appointed?

This is the administrator to take over the function of the police board.

The Chair: We were still on clause 7. We need to pass that first before we can move on to the

next one, if that's okay. I go back to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

M. Morris: Yes, we can transition into 8, so you can call the vote on 7.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

The Chair: Please go ahead, Member.

M. Morris: I appreciate that, Chair. My notes were a little confused with clause 8 on that.

The same question follows. What credentials does the administrator need in order to

be appointed to replace the board?

The Chair: I think at this point the minister is going to table the amendment and then maybe

we…. Does the minister want to move the amendment before getting…?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move in Committee of the Whole on Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, to amend

as follows:

[ CLAUSE 8, by deleting the proposed clause 8 (5). ]

The Chair: Thank you. Now we're moving to questions on the amended clause 8, just to be clear

for all those following, on the proposed amended clause 8 at this point.

Are there any questions on the proposed amendment?

Amendment approved.

On clause 8 as amended.

M. Morris: My question still stands under clause 8, the first one.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'd be looking for someone who has experience working with multiple levels of government,

experiencing, administrating and managing change within large corporations or government

bodies.

M. Morris: Can the minister advise if…? Once the board is suspended and an administrator is appointed,

what will happen to all the

part 11 oversight and complaints currently before or pending

to come before the board?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The

part 11 processes will continue, and the administrator would assume the functions

of the board.

E. Sturko: When the Surrey police board was formed, a great deal of consideration went into Indigenous

representation on the board. If the board is dissolved, how will that Indigenous representation

be taken into consideration?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The board would not be dissolved. It would just be suspended. When the administrator

is no longer required, then any existing appointments would continue being appointed

on the board.

E. Sturko: During the interim of time, when the person who is appointed, the administrator, is

taking over the role of guiding the police transition, the Indigenous representation

from the board will not be doing their role, if I'm understanding correctly. How will

that consideration on behalf of the Indigenous community be taken into account by

the administrator?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The administrator would have the ability to access Indigenous

input or any information while they are the administrator from the nation that is,

part and parcel, being policed by, in this case…. At this point, the RCMP would be

able to access through their role as the administrator.

E. Sturko: A big component of creating new laws in B.C. is that there's consultation with Indigenous

nations so that we can ensure that we're compliant with the UN declaration on the

rights of Indigenous people.

Can you explain, particularly with dealing with this policing transition...? Can you

please go through some of the consultation that was done? What were the First Nations

that were consulted with?

Hon. M. Farnworth: These amendments are focused on how municipalities provide police services. Treaty

and reserve lands do not form part of the municipality. We did, however, consult with

the First Nations Leadership Council, and no concerns were identified.

E. Sturko: Surrey, B.C. actually represents one of the largest urban Indigenous populations in

Canada. We're very proud of our multiculturalism, of the diversity. So it's not only

with regard to policing that would take place, for example, on the Semiahmoo First

Nation, but First Nations individuals who would be impacted by the policing transition,

policing change and the change away from, for example, the RCMP to a municipal force.

[4:05 p.m.]

What type of consultation with overall nations who are represented in the population

of Surrey was done in order to ensure that this transition and this new legislation

that will become law is compliant with UNDRIP?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're confident that we met our obligations under DRIPA. We did, as I said, consult

with the First Nations Leadership Council, and no concerns were identified.

M. Morris: We've only got a couple of questions left.

Who does the administrator report to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrator becomes the police board. They have that relationship with the Surrey

police service. They have that relationship with the director of police services.

M. Morris: So that includes…? The relationship with the mayor will remain the same, and the relationship….

We have a relationship with the mayor, and the police board is responsible for the

municipal policing service. Does the administrator have any responsibilities in reporting

to the RCMP, the current police force of jurisdiction?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrator becomes the police board, and then they would be required to follow

all their obligations that are set out under the Police Act.

M. Morris: I appreciate that. Is there any requirement for the administrator to interact with

the RCMP, and what level of the RCMP would the administrator interact with?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrator would be working, would have…. Obviously, it becomes the police

board, but they would be working closely with the director of police services, who

also works with the RCMP. So, yes, there would be, obviously, engagement and working

cooperatively with the administrator, the director of police services and the RCMP.

M. Morris: One final question on this clause. Can the minister tell the House how long he expects

this transition period to last?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: At this point, no decision has been made as to whether or not an administrator will

be appointed.

M. Morris: That concludes my questions for this clause.

Clause 8 as amended approved.

Clause 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

The Chair: Division has been called.

[4:15 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

The Chair: The question is whether the committee on Bill 36 rise and report the bill complete

with amendment.

Motion approved on the following division:

yeas — 52

Alexis

Babchuk

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chant

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Cullen

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Eby

Elmore

Farnworth

Fleming

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Heyman

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Olsen

Osborne

Paddon

Parmar

Phillip

Popham

Ralston

Rankin

Robinson

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Walker

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 22

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Clovechok

de Jong

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Letnick

Merrifield

Milobar

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

The committee rose at 4:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete with amendment, to be considered

at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading of Bill 34, the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances

Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION OF

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be now be read a second time.

It's my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 34, the Restricting Public Consumption

of Illegal Substances Act.

The toxic drug crisis continues to claim lives at an unprecedented rate, and far too

many people are at risk of a fatal overdose. Our government is committed to saving

lives and connecting people who are struggling with drug addiction to the care they

need.

On the 31st of January of this year, the province and the federal government agreed

to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of certain illicit drugs for personal

use.

We know that drug addiction is a health matter and that people who use drugs deserve

to be treated with compassion and empathy. As such, our government has invested a

historic $1 billion in Budget 2023 to support ongoing enhancements to prevention,

treatment and recovery and harm reduction services.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

At the same time, we have heard from local governments, police and British Columbians

that they are concerned about public drug use.

The decriminalization effort is intended to reduce the stigma associated with drug

use and remove barriers for people to seek help and supports that they need to address

addiction issues.

[4:30 p.m.]

It is not meant to suggest that decriminalized drugs can be used anywhere, especially

in areas that are frequently used by children and families, as well as places that

people use to get around their community. British Columbians want to feel safe in

their neighbourhoods and enjoy public and recreational spaces free from drug use.

The Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act establishes this balance

by setting out clear rules around where people cannot use decriminalized drugs in

public. This legislation treats the consumption of decriminalized drugs similar to

the way we regulate the use of other substances such as tobacco, alcohol and cannabis,

which makes it easy for everyone to understand.

Under this bill, a person must not use decriminalized drugs within 15 metres of a

playground, spray or wading pool or a skate park; at a park, beach or sports field;

or within six metres of an entrance to a workplace or to a business or residential

building that is adjacent to a public place such as a sidewalk; and within six metres

of a public transit bus stop.

Our government also acknowledges that many people who use drugs in public are unhoused

or experience other vulnerabilities, which is why we are proposing a progressive enforcement

approach.

When a police officer responds to a person who is using decriminalized drugs in one

of these places, they can direct the person to stop using, to leave the area or both.

In the vast majority of cases, we expect that most people will choose to relocate

to a place where drug use is allowed, such as an overdose prevention site or supervised

consumption site, where they can use their drugs more safely and be connected to critical

services and supports.

Under this legislation, an offence will only occur if the person refuses the direction

from a police officer to stop using their drugs and/or leave the area. When this happens,

police will have the authority to arrest the person, seize their drugs and advance

charges.

Ultimately, the goal of this legislation is to achieve voluntary compliance rather

than taking punitive enforcement actions against people who use drugs in public. We

want people who use drugs to be redirected to safer places such as overdose prevention

sites and to treatment services where they can get the services and the supports that

they need to stay alive.

Through this legislation, our government also intends to reduce the patchwork approach

to addressing public drug use at the local government level. Through extensive consultation

with local governments, we are confident that this bill addresses the main areas of

concern for British Columbians and will create a consistent approach across B.C.

We also recognize that some local governments may have legitimate reasons to address

other specific public drug use considerations that are unique to their community.

The Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act will require local governments

to consult with their regional health authority and local medical health officer before

considering any bylaws that restrict public use of decriminalized substances.

Taken as a whole, this legislation aims to establish a consistent set of provincewide

standards around public drug use and provide police with the tools to help redirect

people who are using drugs in inappropriate areas to better and safer places such

as overdose prevention sites or to treatment support resources.

E. Sturko: I rise today to Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

I'd like to begin, if I may, by taking a few moments to review the concept and legal

framework of the decriminalization pilot in British Columbia. This is going to be

relevant to speaking to this bill, as I lay out the shortcomings of this legislation.

Health Canada granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to

the province of B.C., effective January 31, 2023, to January 31 of 2026. Now, this

exemption means that adults, 18 years and older, in B.C. are not arrested or charged

for possessing 2.5 grams or less of certain illegal drugs for personal use. The illegal

drugs covered by this exemption are opioids such as heroin, morphine and fentanyl,

crack and powder cocaine, methamphetamine and MDMA.

[4:35 p.m.]

Adults found in possession of any combination of these illegal drugs that adds up

to a combined total of 2.5 grams or less are not subject to arrest, criminal charges,

and the drugs are not seized. Instead of arrest or seizure for their illicit drugs,

it's intended for individuals to be offered information about health and social services.

This includes support with making a referral to a local treatment or recovery service,

if requested.

Legally, people in possession of 2.5 grams of drugs for personal use are immune to

prosecution under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. On January 31, 2023, under

the original decriminalization agreement, several locations were not exempt from criminal

investigation and continued to exist as locations where police could exercise their

full discretion. K-to-12 school properties, licensed child care facilities and airports

were among places that were included. Parks, playgrounds, doorways, wading pools,

skate parks, transit stops were all, of course, considered fair game for the consumption

of illicit drugs.

Problems in communities began almost immediately following the launch of the decriminalization

pilot, with business owners who began to note problems with street disorder, public

intoxication, increased incidents of public defecation, drug paraphernalia being left

in the vicinity of their doorways. The impact of reducing the criminal liability for

public drug use had an immediate result on the emboldening of drug use in public spaces.

The government failed to anticipate the consequences of decriminalization on the rest

of the community, people who are not engaged in drug use, people who are sympathetic

to the plight of those suffering from addiction, but people who now find themselves

struggling to keep businesses open, struggling to keep staff, in the face of ever-increasing

violent behaviours, struggling to pay for vandalism and damages often perpetrated

by those who are publicly intoxicated, or even more seriously, in drug-induced psychosis.

Parents were afraid to take their children to the park for fear of encountering someone

in psychosis or of having their child pricked with needles or poisoned by drug residue

left in play areas. Need I remind you of the five-year-old girl from Nanaimo who brought

home a tiny bag of fentanyl that she picked up from her elementary school playground.

This happened in April. It happened regardless of no exemption existing in K-to-12

school grounds.

More recently, on October 5, Mihai Ionescu said he was recently at the École Pauline

Johnson field in West Vancouver with his daughter for a soccer game. When he went

to go get some water at the fountain, he noticed several needles scattered on the

ground near the school. This came after the expansion of decriminalization limits

on September 18. So now we have parents who feel they must call on school districts

to carry out programs and carry naloxone in fear that their children will be poisoned

by toxic drugs while they're out playing on the playground.

In the 2020 election, the NDP vowed to fast-track decriminalization. Now, three years

later we can see the results of rushing. We see evidence not only in the lack of consideration

for overall public safety, but we see it in the lack of urgency that this government

has in providing services for people who use drugs.

Eight months later, after the horse has already left the barn, this government has

finally taken a tiny step toward safety in parks and playgrounds. However, this new

legislation does not offer the strongest measures available. It doesn't provide the

strongest deterrents for police and peace officers.

Why is B.C. doing the decriminalization pilot? Well, according to the B.C. government's

own website: "Available evidence suggests that decriminalization can be an effective

way to reduce the harms associated with substance use and criminalization."

It goes on to say: "Decriminalization is not associated with increased rates of substance

use. In Portugal, since decriminalization, the rates of substance use and overdose

deaths…remain below the European averages."

Furthermore, it says: "Decriminalization is expected to provide cost savings to the

criminal justice system. In Portugal," it says, "since decriminalization, the proportion

of prisoners sentenced for drugs has fallen from 40 percent to 15 percent, and the

substantial reduction in arrests and charges alleviates pressures on the criminal

justice system."

[4:40 p.m.]

It sounds, actually, pretty good. But the government goes on to list other jurisdictions

where decriminalization has been implemented, including Portugal, Uruguay, Germany,

Lithuania, Australia, the Czech Republic and our neighbours the United States.

Here's the problem. We're dealing with a government that consistently only tells half

the story and consistently only does half the work. They like to cite countries like

Portugal, Germany and Uruguay to justify their decriminalization experiment, yet they

fail to recognize that in the other countries that they cite, where decriminalization

has been somewhat successful, there are strict measures. There are administrative

penalties. While a person might not receive a criminal penalty, they're still held

accountable for their actions, and they're compelled to change their behaviours.

Portugal, Germany and Uruguay — all countries cited by this government — all have

means to place people into involuntary treatment. Something that this government refuses

to do. Something that they don't have the political courage to carry out. If a person

in these countries is convicted of a criminal act because of drug use, well, then

they're sentenced to involuntary drug treatment.

In Portugal, public drug use remains forbidden. Pharmaceutical alternatives to illicit

drugs — what this government likes to call safe supply — are only available under

supervision and as part of a transition to treatment.

No wonder decriminalization is failing here, on all fronts in British Columbia, while

having success in other corners of the world. This government has failed to put in

the measures required for success.

Prior to seeing Bill 34, I had a faint hope that this legislation would actually have

some form of administrative measures, a means to compel people, to direct a person

to visit services or to attend a face-to-face meeting with a drug counsellor. But

it doesn't.

That's what they do in Portugal. If you get caught using drugs in public, you can

receive an administrative penalty, which compels you to go to dissuasion court. If

you fail to change your behaviour, you can be compelled to go into services to provide

treatment and aftercare.

This is a missed opportunity in Bill 34. None of that was done. In fact, this government

loves to talk about the fact that it's decriminalization and not legalization. But

without any regulation, it is legalization. You can do drugs just about anywhere.

This new bill has you not even being arrested for drug use in a place that's forbidden.

I mean, have mercy. If someone should take the leadership to have an administrative

process, to actually compel people into services…. It's probably, though, when I think

about it…. The reason they don't want to compel people into services is because they

haven't created adequate services for people to access help, even if they want it.

Bill 34 doesn't, within itself, contain any administrative penalties. It defaults

to the Offence Act of B.C., where, upon conviction, a person could be fined a maximum

of $2,000, sentenced to six months in jail. So if you don't listen to the police officer

and stop doing drugs or move on, like the Solicitor General mentioned in his remarks….

Well, a person could be charged under the Offence Act.

We know that it's unlikely that a street-entrenched person or one who uses drugs and

is unhoused would likely have the resources to pay a fine, and it would be highly

unlikely for a conviction under the Offence Act to result in a custodial sentence.

So why not have used Bill 34 to create regulatory processes, maybe a new form of compelling

people to a face-to-face meeting to discuss options?

We know that in terms of educating people on what's available here in B.C.… That's

one pillar that's like a withering plant that hasn't received much water in this province,

but perhaps a face-to-face meeting would help someone understand the services that

might be available to them.

[4:45 p.m.]

Instead of Bill 34 being an opportunity to help people transition into wellness, it

just remains, purely, a tool to push drug users from one area to the next. I'll give

you another example of how Bill 34, if the government was truly following the path

of decriminalization taken by Portugal and Germany and all these other countries cited

on the government's own website….

Here's the example. This is a name that will be familiar to anyone who follows the

proceedings of the B.C. Legislature. His name is Mohammed Majidpour. It's a name we're

too familiar with here, I would argue, in the Legislature.

Despite his probation requirements, which request that he stay away from illicit opioids

and substances, his bouts of drug-induced psychosis continue. After citing a psychiatric

assessment, a judge found that Mr. Majidpour was very likely to reoffend in a violent

manner if his substance use and housing issues were not addressed. He refuses to attend

treatment, leaving the safety of British Columbians questionable, as he is released

time and again.

The current legislation we have in B.C. can't compel Mr. Majidpour to go into treatment,

even though he is recommended to do so, even though the safety of other people in

our community is at risk through his continued drug use. Treatment would likely help

improve his well-being and reduce the chances of subsequent criminal offences. If

this was truly a Portugal model — an example of Portugal, Australia, Lithuania and

those other countries — then Bill 34 would provide an opportunity to compel those

who continue to place others at risk through their drug use into programs and services.

As I mentioned earlier, many of these countries will sentence a person to treatment

options. These countries are noted by the government as being successful examples

of decriminalization. Instead, we have a bill before us that does more of the same,

allowing people to consume substances in public spaces without access to treatment

and other social services and putting the public in harm's way of drug paraphernalia.

Section 4 of Bill 34 speaks to how police are expected to deal with persons who are

consuming drugs in parks and playgrounds or in doorways. It stipulates that the course

of action for officers is to ask a person to stop using, leave the area or both. Only

if the person refuses to do so can the police make an arrest without warrant.

This, again, is a missed opportunity. Police can't arrest or detain for investigation,

and they're not provided an opportunity to identify a person who might be reported

as missing. Maybe they have an outstanding court process. Maybe they have warrants

for their arrest. Now those won't be processed. Additionally, it also removes an opportunity

for police to seize dangerous weapons. It's often during safety searches where police

locate hidden weapons, guns, machetes, bear spray, knives, axes. You name it; they

find it.

Since the beginning of decriminalization, we saw several municipalities struggling

with the consequences of emboldened public drug use. Campbell River was one of the

first to be forced to create a municipal bylaw prohibiting drug consumption within

15 metres of public spaces where children and families gather.

Mayor Kermit Dahl said the bylaw is intended to improve safety for people downtown,

where there have been multiple stabbings. In July, before the bylaw came into force,

a 21-year-old father was stabbed twice in the chest coming to help someone, an unconscious

person who he went to assist after hearing cries for help.

Mayor Dahl told the media that he hoped enforcement of the bylaw encouraged people

to congregate at an overdose prevention site rather than in parks and other public

places. He says: "If they're using at a place that is set up to be used for doing

all these illicit drugs, rather than a place where young children are likely to be….

I think that, right in itself, explains how it affects safety." This makes sense.

Direct people to where they can use illicit drugs under supervision.

[4:50 p.m.]

Kamloops council approved a sweeping ban on illicit drug use in public spaces. They

prohibited the use and even display of a controlled substance on any sidewalk or within

100 metres of a designated area. A designated area is defined as public parks, playgrounds,

urban forests, beaches, pools, community and recreation centres, public libraries,

art galleries, arenas and exhibition buildings.

Exempt from the bylaw is the use of drugs at supervised drug use and overdose prevention

locations and facilities operated by or on behalf of Interior Health, B.C. Housing

or any other government authority, regardless of how close they are to any of the

designated areas. Makes sense. Allow people to use in locations and facilities where

they can get help.

On September 5, 2023, Nelson passed a bylaw prohibiting public drug use in areas most

used by children on a regular basis for recreation and other leisure activities: "The

use of illicit drugs in parks is likely to interfere with the public's use and enjoyment

of parks and, in particular, is likely to disrupt recreational and other leisure activities,

disturb the peace, comfort and enjoyment of people using the park in their leisure

time and result in unsettling behaviour, which causes some members of the public to

leave or avoid the park."

You know what? Nelson has an overdose prevention site. So again, community-made restrictions,

and it has a place for people to go and be safe and receive services. But unfortunately,

it's not the case everywhere. It's not the case everywhere in B.C., and it's one of

the biggest failures of decriminalization. It is, in fact, where the NDP has demonstrably

failed to meet the letter of requirement in the Health Canada exemption.

I'm going to quote the letter, where Health Canada outlines the requirements as follows:

"This letter lays out details further to the commitments made by the province to support

the successful implementation of the exemption, specifically in the areas of (1) alternative

measures; (2) meaningful and ongoing engagement with partners and stakeholders;

(3) Indigenous engagement; (4)" — this is the one — "readiness and capacity of the health

and social systems."

I'll say it again: "readiness and capacity of the health and social systems." So would

that be maybe supervised consumption sites in every location in British Columbia,

where people could go to be safe, particularly now that people can possess, carry

and use drugs without penalty or even without any regulatory means of compelling them

into services? Would that not have been something that I would think would fit the

definition of "readiness and capacity of the health and social systems"?

There's not a supervised consumption site in every B.C. community. People have no

place to go. The creation of Bill 34 has now created a situation where there's no

legal mechanism to compel people into treatment services. That's what they do. That's

exactly what they do in Portugal. Police have to now operate under the expectation

that they just move people on. Move people on who have no place to go — people who

use drugs.

In most municipalities in B.C., they don't have a safe place to go. This government

has failed the requirement (4) readiness and capacity of health and social systems,

and they've been promising to implement — I would say fast-track — decriminalization

since 2020. That's three years now that they've had to ensure that the province was

ready to come up with actual services and legislation and regulations to actually

help people who use drugs and save their lives and keep communities safe.

At UBCM, I had the pleasure to talk with several city councillors and mayors from

every corner of the province, including communities where the NDP currently holds

seats. What I've heard time and again is that they need help ensuring residents are

safe.

They didn't ask for decriminalization. It was thrust upon them with little information

or resources, and now they're scrambling. They've told me that they feel entirely

abandoned by this government to deal with decriminalization. There's rampant street

disorder and complex health issues that they often feel involve concurrent addiction

and mental health issues. They feel let down.

[4:55 p.m.]

Let down like in Kelowna, which has been let down, for example. Promised 20 complex

care beds, and four of 20 are open. We're talking about a community that has probably

close to a kilometre of unhoused people dealing with complex mental health and addictions

issues, and they've got four beds out of 20. This is unacceptable.

It's like this across the province. It's a $1 billion promise made for mental health

and addictions, and results are scarce to see. Seven years and two elections later,

we're on track to reach a new overdose record in British Columbia. It's painful to

say that. It's frustrating to stand here as a member of the opposition and see and

hear myself say out loud that we're dealing with a government that sells decriminalization

to the public like it's following a recipe book, a playbook from other European countries,

and it's not.

Maybe in title alone. Maybe even in the name "decriminalization," but it's a pie with

no filling. There's nothing there. There are no services. There's no way to compel

people like they do in the other countries that have been successful with decriminalization.

Where are the regulations to get people in front of a counsellor or a dissuasion committee?

It's a crucial part of the recipe that's missing.

I'm very disappointed to see what a wasted opportunity this bill is. I do hope that

maybe some amendments can be made. Maybe some further consideration into the importance

of being able to use these opportunities with law enforcement and other peace officers

to find ways of helping guide people towards the help they need. But at this point,

I don't feel that hopeful about it.

I'll just read one more quote from the government's website, if I may, because it

really stood out for me, particularly today, where we've been having a lot of discussions

about the opioid crisis and about how we continue to lose six people a day in this

province, hearing about a young 13-year-old girl that lost her life to drug toxicity.

The quote is: "Decriminalization is not legalization. Under this exemption, illegal

drugs are not legalized and will not be sold in stores. Unless otherwise authorized,

drug production, trafficking, import and export remain illegal regardless of the type

or amount of drug(

s) in possession."

Why this stood out for me so profoundly is that drug trafficking remains illegal,

yet this government supported organizations as part of its strategy in the opioid

crisis. Two organizations that have been involved in purchasing drugs — one from the

dark web and the other…. I'm not sure where they got their drugs, but it wasn't because

they had a licence from Health Canada. I'm talking about the Drug Users Liberation

Front and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users. Both, in media, talk about how

they have trafficked illicit drugs, and this government funded them $1.2 million between

the two organizations.

How does this relate to Bill 34? Well, how can we trust a government to implement

laws regarding the decriminalization of drugs, regarding drugs at all, when they partner

with people who purchase illicit drugs from gangs and cartels, from the dark web,

from people that put money and guns into the hands of people that kill British Columbians

every year?

In my home community, gang violence has been a significant problem throughout the

years. I can tell you that seeing that $1.2 million of taxpayer money went to support

organizations that put money into the hands of gangs and drug traffickers makes me

sick. It's wrong.

It's time for this government to have a serious look in the mirror about the way that

it is handling this entire pilot, because we're not truly doing decriminalization

as laid out in other countries.

[5:00 p.m.]

I'm not even sure that this government knows what it's doing at all. It's evidenced

by the ever-rising number of toxicity deaths and untreated complex, concurrent mental

health and addictions issues of people living and languishing on the streets.

I'm very pleased to have had an opportunity to speak to this legislation. I'm really

looking forward to having an opportunity in the committee stage. When we're dealing

with something as serious as around 13,000 people having died in B.C. in the last

seven years, it's time for us to work together to try to change things.

I really hope that the minister, his deputy minister or those that work for him —

and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and even the Minister of Health —

have heard the things that I've said and will reflect on the decisions that they made

with the decriminalization pilot.

You can't do half the work and expect the same results. Let's work together through

Bill 34. Let's implement changes that can compel people into services. If we're going

to have police move people on, let's have them move onto pathways into recovery, to

wellness. People do recover. We have to provide them every opportunity that we can

to make sure that they do.

Thank you for this opportunity, hon. Speaker.

P. Milobar: I'm pleased to take my place on the Bill 34 debate around restricting public consumption

of illegal substances. I just want to touch on a few points, in my comments here today,

which we've heard across the province over the years — certainly as decrim rolled

out here in the spring — and the lack of responsiveness from this government in regard

to that.

It is troubling, in a way. When you think back to the spring session as decriminalization

was coming into effect, and we as opposition were raising concerns around areas of

the letters of requirement from the federal government that we felt hadn't been met

by the government and around the fact that we started hearing from municipalities

saying, "Hang on; there's a big gap here."

Parks, playgrounds and public spaces aren't treated the same way under decriminalization

as they are with tobacco use, as they are with alcohol, or as they are with schools.

This Bill 34 really started with the municipalities rising up and saying, "We want

a provincial standard around this." The response from the provincial government was,

"Well, let's just wait. Let's just wait. Let people go and enjoy the parks all throughout

the summer. We'll see what happens. If we need to, we'll come back and bring legislation

in." As pressure mounted, they eventually said no. They were much more definitive.

They were going to be bringing in legislation in the fall.

We, as opposition, said we were willing and able to come back at any time in the summer

to reconvene the Legislature, to have a one-bill session and deal with this type of

legislation in the immediate time frame, to reduce the confusion out there, for the

public and for municipalities, on how they may choose to implement and deal with things

like public drug use in public spaces, as Bill 34 is attempting to do.

There was a lot of confusion as to whether you needed provincial sign-off on the bylaws

that municipalities were starting to bring forward. Did it need to be a health officer

that signed off or not? Did it need to be the provincial government that signed off?

If it was a public safety-related bill, then no, you didn't need it. If it was a health-related

bylaw, you would need your local health authorities and health officers to consult

and sign off on it.

[5:05 p.m.]

That was a problem, because in my part of the world, in Kamloops, Interior Health

was saying, "No, we don't want any anyone to do anything for at least six months"

— very much in line with what the provincial government was saying.

Then you read Bill 34, and clause 2 takes us right back to those days. It says that

municipalities, if they would like to do bylaws around public consumption that may

exceed what the provincial government is laying out in Bill 34, will be required to

be consulting with those same health authorities and public health officers. It doesn't

say that you have to get agreement from them. It doesn't say whether there's a veto

or not.

That creates a problem of further confusion, moving forward, that people will have

around this bill. That's a problem because, again, when you look at the letters of

requirement of what the province was supposed to do in conjunction with decrim, certain

areas weren't met. There's a crucial piece that wasn't met — which, I think, is indicative

of how this government operates. It's around results and lack thereof.

This government routinely makes grand statements, gestures and proclamations, changing

the titles of ministers and things of that nature, as if that is going to, in and

of itself, make this dramatic change to see a better outcome for the public of British

Columbia on any given topic.

Why that's important with the letters of requirement — my colleague speaking before

me pointed out the areas where they fell short — and the one that's always bothered

me is that the baseline data that was supposed to be collected over the year leading

up to decriminalization was supposed to be collected by this government.

How do you have a pilot project — a three-year study, whatever you want to call this

experiment that the three-year approval was for — if you don't know what your starting

measurables are, and if you don't know what it is that you're actually trying to track

in the here and the now, to be able to look it over every six months, monthly or every

year to say: "Is this system working? Is decriminalization working, or is it not?"

You don't start with a base subset. We were asking the government repeatedly in the

spring to provide what those are, to provide even what they feel would be considered

a success or a failure of decriminalization. What are we measuring? What are we trying

to move the needle on, so to speak? Is it death by overdose? Is it non-fatal overdose

numbers? Is it people into treatment? Is it people considered into recovery?

What exactly are we trying to actually accomplish under decriminalization? Is it street

disorder; vandalism; petty crime; violent, random crime? What exactly were we going

to measure to put up against stats, moving forward, over the next three years?

Then we find out that very little of that was done, if any, in any substantive way.

We find that out just recently when the government declares that yet another thing

they were supposed to do, which was regular reporting out, won't be happening. It

won't be happening in a very public and transparent way, and certainly not on the

timelines and the frequency that they had originally agreed with.

I've said this many times over the years and many times in this chamber over the years

as well. When a government — I don't care what political stripe or what level of government

they are, municipal provincial, federal — doesn't want to talk about what is happening

to a program, which they call a signature program, or to have easily accessible data,

it's because it's failing. Governments seem to have no problem finding a microphone

and a podium if they want to tout successes.

[5:10 p.m.]

When you see a government continuing to stall and to refuse to provide even the basic

reporting, you know the system is failing. So the cynic in me says Bill 34 is simply

a way for them to try to change the channel again, to try to appear to be doing something

— because they know there are mounting frustrations in communities and in business

districts and worry with parents — without actually doing anything.

I can think of no better example of that than the title Minister of Mental Health

and Addictions by this government. And I say that about all the ministers of Mental

Health and Addictions that this government has had to this point.

It was great fanfare that they launched that ministry when they took government. But

results are what actually matters, especially in a public health emergency where it's

literally life or death. If we look at the lack of results that ministry has delivered

under various ministers, it's shocking.

Decriminalization is supposed to be the big way forward. Yet, in the seven years,

very little has been done on recovery and treatment by this government — of trying

to help people that are addicted due to workplace injuries, that don't want to wind

up on the Downtown Eastside but actually can't access treatment.

Instead of figuring out a way to get them treatment in a timely fashion and in a way

that doesn't cost them money, this government's answer is to give them drugs — hydromorphone,

so-called safe supply. As much as they need. As much as they want.

In fact, I was listening to one of the radio shows the other day. A gentleman from

the Lower Mainland phoned in, and he says: "I want physiotherapy." But it's $125 a

session for him, and the government won't cover that, but they'll give him pills.

So instead, he gets the prescription filled.

It's not even just about treatment and recovery in the "treatment and recovery from

an addiction" sense. It's this government's inability to give people with workplace

injuries proper treatment that doesn't require them to be on opioids.

It's simply not good enough for this government to, on every single topic, try to

now magically blame 20 years ago.

We heard