Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament

(2024) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, April 4, 2024

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 405

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Introduction and First Reading of Bills

Bill 17 — Police Amendment Act, 2024

Hon. M. Farnworth

Speaker’s Statement

Non-partisan statements by members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

Qingming Festival

T. Wat

Sikh Heritage Month and history of Sikhs in B.C.

A. Singh

Organ donation and Logan Boulet

G. Kyllo

Easter celebration events in Campbell River

M. Babchuk

Importance of water and impact of drought

S. Furstenau

Science and policy-making

R. Russell

Speaker’s Statement

Decorum and behaviour during question period

Oral Questions

Drug decriminalization program and illicit drug use in health care facilities

E. Sturko

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

Oil and gas industry profits and taxation

S. Furstenau

Hon. J. Osborne

Hon. R. Kahlon

Drug decriminalization program and impact on communities

B. Banman

Hon. R. Kahlon

Drug decriminalization program and illicit drug use in health care facilities

B. Banman

Hon. A. Dix

Government action on antisemitism and response to issues

S. Robinson

Hon. R. Kahlon

Gas prices and fuel taxes

T. Halford

Hon. G. Heyman

Motions Without Notice

Referral of CleanBC Go Electric program administration practices to Auditor General review

T. Stone

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

S. Furstenau

J. Rustad

E. Ross

A. Olsen

B. Banman

Orders of the Day

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 12 — Public Health Accountability and Cost Recovery Act (continued)

T. Halford

N. Letnick

THURSDAY, APRIL 4, 2024

The House met at 10:03 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: Hon. D. Coulter.

Introductions by Members

H. Yao: I want to take this opportunity to wish Tanya Slater, a Richmond

firefighter, a happy birthday. I do believe she has requested, for her

birthday wish, a 24-hour shift.

I ask all in the chamber to join with me in wishing her a happy

birthday.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Today we’re honoured to have in the gallery Ron MacDonald, the chief

civilian director of the independent investigations office of British

Columbia.

The independent investigations office plays a vital role in upholding

accountability and transparency with our law enforcement agencies. With a

commitment to impartiality and thoroughness, the IIO investigates incidents

involving police officers that result in serious harm or death. That

relationship between law enforcement and our communities is of paramount

importance, and the work of the IIO ensures that justice is served and

public trust is maintained.

[10:05 a.m.]

Would the House please join me in making Ron very welcome

today.

R. Merrifield: Today I have the privilege of introducing a very special guest to this

chamber, my first-born son, Mikhail Wasylyk, or to those who know him, Mik.

At 26 years old — that’s right, I had him when I was 12; just joking — and 6

foot 6, he stands as a testament to curiosity and ambition, an engineer by

profession but forever the inquisitive child at heart.

Mik’s presence here today absolutely fills my heart with joy. It’s

like my two worlds get to collide. But it’s he who fills our spirits with

hope for the next generation.

He’s always been a source of inspiration for me, reminding me of the

importance of our work here in the chamber to foster an environment where

curiosity breeds innovation, where integrity paves the way for progress and

where change is always possible. Even as a young child he never accepted

anything without doing his own investigation. He was the kid who said “why”

of everything, but he was also the best big brother to his sister and

brother.

Mik’s journey fills me with pride and hope. He daily challenges me

with all of his text messages — yes, every last one of them — but especially

lunch dates that he spends time with me in. He also inspires me to do my

best in building a society that can create space for the next generations’

dreams and hopes.

They say that you love each child equally, and you do, but for

different reasons. I love my Mik or Meschuck because he was the first to

give me the best job in the entire world, being a mom.

I’m so happy that you’re here today, Mik.

Would the House please join me in welcoming him.

Hon. H. Bains: I’m really happy today to introduce to this House my administrative

coordinator Samantha Newcombe, who is in the House today along with her

father, Dave Newcombe. He’s here to watch the question period today from the

gallery.

Mr. Newcombe is a longtime New Democrat. He is cele­brating his

retirement after 26 years with the Hospital Employees Union. On behalf of

his daughter, my administrative coordinator Samantha, she’d like to thank

him for teaching her the values of hard work and advocating for workers’

rights.

Please join with me and give both of them a very, very warm

welcome.

J. Rustad: In the gallery today, we have the Conservative Party of British

Columbia’s candidate for Courtenay-Comox, Damon Scrase. Damon is a

hard-working fisherman from Courtenay, born in Comox. He is an everyday,

hard-working British Columbian who put his name forward to represent his

home community and make change for British Columbia.

Would the House please make him welcome.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to recognize two individuals on behalf of our

caucus.

First, Alissa Brandt, who is our executive director. This is her last

day with us. She is one of the lucky ones. She’s got a lovely, beautiful

grandchild in Manitoba, and she gets the opportunity now to move back to

Manitoba to be closer to her family, closer to her grandchild. My dad used

to say there’s principal, and then there’s interest. She gets to now enjoy

the interest.

We’re going to miss her. She’s been instrumental in the work that we

do. She has supported all of our caucus members through good times, through

challenging times. We really appreciate the work that she’s done on behalf

of caucus, so I want to recognize her. She’s probably in the other room,

watching.

Alissa, we are going to really miss you, but I know that the folks in

Manitoba are going to gain a really, really big asset that will support them

as well.

Will the House please thank Alissa for the work that she’s done for

British Columbia.

Now, we always thank the amazing people that make this House function,

but there are some other folks that help make this House function that

rarely get recognized.

[10:10 a.m.]

Today I’m losing somebody who is very important in my team, somebody

who works very well with the teams here, who works well with Ms. P., who

works well with Laura from our Green caucus, with Hannah from the B.C.

Conservatives. It’s Will Maartman.

Will Maartman keeps the House going. While we sit in this House and

jostle and discuss issues, people like Will, people like Ms. P, people like

Laura, Hannah…. They all work together behind the scenes to make sure that

this House continues to function.

Will is an amazing individual. He started working for the caucus as a

receptionist. He’s done pretty much every single role that you can in our

caucus to now leading and making sure that the legislative agenda continues

to go through. Today is his last day working with my team.

I know, on behalf of the Solicitor General who worked with him for

many, many years…. He shared many stories. I don’t think I should share them

all and put them on Hansard , but on behalf of all of us, I want to

say thank you for the work he’s done and congratulate him, as he’s now the

new executive director for the NDP caucus.

I want to say thank you to Will. Enjoy your new role. We’re going to

miss you on this side.

Please, can the House join me in thanking him for the work he’s

done.

Hon. G. Lore: I have two sets of introductions to make.

First, I’d like to welcome Katisha Paul, Soh and Alana Reeve to the

House. I’m incredibly grateful that they’re joining today. They’re here for

an important and exciting announcement that we have later today.

Katisha Paul is the elected UBCIC youth rep. I’ve had the opportunity

to connect with her, and I’m very grateful for that connection and a chance

to listen and learn. I’m really grateful to be doing this work together and

to continue to work alongside her.

Soh is a member of the provincial director of child welfare’s Youth

Advisory Council. They have just completed their first year on the YAC and

are starting their second.

The Youth Advisory Council is a really important group that helps

inform the work that the ministry does. Alana Reeve is a Youth Advisory

Council mental health clinician.

Will the House please join me in making all three of these individuals

very welcome in this House.

D. Routley: After 19 years in this House, I can say to everyone, and they all know

this is true, that our constituency assistants are the backbone of our

service to our community. They are the front-facing presence in our office.

They take in so many difficult and challenging casework issues.

I once saw a cartoon of someone blindfolded with a dart, about to

throw it at a wall with tons of labels: transportation, education, health

care. The caption said: “Today I’m an expert in….” That’s what CAs are. They

have to have relationships throughout government and be able to solve

problems, and we are the beneficiaries of their great work. I am pleased

today to have the two great CAs from my community, Sarah Miller and Pamela

Cooling, in the House as my guests today.

Yesterday I made a statement where I made a joke about an aging

hospital being ravaged and worn by time. My friend from Surrey-Cloverdale

reminded me I may be speaking about myself. In that statement, I also spoke

about a progressive council, North Cowichan, which is partnering with the

Cowichan Hospital project to advance housing needs along with that

project.

One of those progressive councillors, a previous Green Party

candidate, Chris Istace, is also here as a guest.

Those failing, aging eyes don’t permit me to recognize the fourth

person who is with them, but I would like the House to help me welcome all

of these fine people from my constituency.

The Speaker: The Minister of Children and Family Development, one more

introduction.

Hon. G. Lore: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the second

opportunity.

Also joining us in the gallery today are my aunt and uncle. Sandy and

Shelley Cotton are here, and I’m grateful to have them join us today. They

live in Victoria, and my community benefits from these two wonderful

individuals, who moved here in the last few years and bring with them their

deep commitment to community.

[10:15 a.m.]

My uncle Sandy is a decorated veteran and an ordained deacon in the

Anglican Church. He was a professor at Queen’s. My auntie Shelley changed

countless lives over the decades as a teacher. They’re both, as I said,

deeply committed to community as volunteers, and are deeply committed to

their children and six granddaughters as well.

Will the House please join me in making them welcome as

well.

I. Paton: I would just like today to send out congratulations to Tsawwassen

First Nation. Yesterday was the 15th anniversary of their treaty. They’re

doing some wonderful things out there, certainly adding to our housing stock

in Delta. They’re part of my Delta South riding.

Congratulations to Chief Laura Cassidy, my good friend Bryce Williams

and all their executive council.

Please, everyone, congratulations on the 15th anniversary of

Tsawwassen First Nation’s treaty.

M. Elmore: It’s my little sister’s birthday tomorrow, so I would ask everybody in

the Legislature to please wish her, Lolita Elmore, a very happy

birthday.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 17 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

Hon. M. Farnworth presented a message from Her Honour the

Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Police Amendment Act,

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time

now.

I’m pleased to introduce Bill 17, the Police Amendment Act, 2024.

This bill is the first step towards making systematic improvements to

the policing and public safety landscape in B.C.

The bill addresses three recommendations of the 2022 Special

Committee on Reforming the Police Act, seven recommendations from the

2019 Special Committee to Review the Police Complaint Process and

legislative changes requested by the Office of the Police Complaint

Commissioner and the Ombudsperson.

The legislation makes changes to municipal police governance,

oversight and police superintendence, including allowing local

governments to determine who their representative will be on their

police board and will allow members of the police board to elect their

chair and vice-chair.

This bill will also allow the Police Complaint Commissioner to

call a public hearing earlier in misconduct investigations and improves

the commissioner’s authority to conduct systemic reviews and

investigations into the causes of and contributors to police

complaints.

The Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second

reading at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 17, Police Amendment Act, 2024, introduced, read a first time

and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next

sitting of the House after today.

Speaker’s Statement

NON-PARTISAN STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS

The Speaker: Members, before we start two-minute statements today, I just want

to remind all members that the two-minute statement should be very

non-partisan. In the last couple of days we have noted that some

statements were not very neutral, so please keep that in mind when you

are speaking and celebrating or recognizing people when you are making

two-minute statements.

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

QINGMING FESTIVAL

T. Wat: As the MLA for Richmond North Centre and on behalf of the B.C.

United official opposition, I rise to recognize the Qingming festival, a

profound tradition within our Chinese communities.

Qingming, or Tomb Sweeping Day, observed shortly after the spring

equinox, is a time when families across British Columbia unite to honour

their ancestors, reflecting on the legacies that shape our

society.

This is a time for me personally to remember and reconnect with my

beloved parents, my very dear husband and my only sister in the world,

reliving all our fond memories when we are all together as a loving

family.

[10:20 a.m.]

This festival embodies our connection to the past, allowing us to

commemorate those who came before us. It’s a day of remembrance,

gratitude and renewal, inviting us to look back with respect and forward

with hope.

In this moment, let’s also remember the early Chinese settlers of

British Columbia, whose resilience and contributions are an integral

part of our province’s rich mosaic. Their spirit and hard work continue

to inspire us, reminding us of the strength found in diversity and the

importance of honouring our shared history. It is a legacy that reminds

us of the importance of inclusion, respect and understanding across all

communities that call British Columbia our home.

Today I urge all British Columbians to embrace the spirit of

Qingming, recognizing the deep roots and enduring bonds that unite us.

Let us move forward committed to building a province marked by

understanding, respect and unity.

SIKH HERITAGE MONTH

AND HISTORY OF SIKHS IN

B.C.

A. Singh: Since 2017, April has been marked as Sikh Heritage Month in

British Columbia to honour the invaluable contributions Sikhs have made

to our province over the last century.

When the first Sikhs arrived in Canada, they were part of the army

regiment stationed in Hong Kong. They travelled by train through Canada

in commemoration of Queen Victoria’s Diamond Jubilee in 1897.

I find this fact über-interesting. As you know, I also hail from

Hong Kong. Until the mid-’90s, the last Sikh regiment in the British

Army was still stationed at Stonecutters Island in Hong Kong. Our uncle,

who also moved from Hong Kong to British Columbia and lives in

Coquitlam, Thirath Singh, was one of the last commanders of that

unit.

Following this initial visit, a second contingent of Punjabi

soldiers visited B.C. in celebration of the coronation of King Edward

VII in 1902. They arrived in Victoria on the Empress of Japan

on June 3, 1902, and their reception was not unwelcoming. Local papers

exclaimed: “Turbaned Men Excite Interest: Awe-inspiring Men from India

Held the Crowds.”

That changed very quickly as permanent immigration started shortly

after with the establishment of a gurdwara in Golden and then the Khalsa

Diwan Society in Vancouver.

The next century or so is a story of struggle and incredible

achievements in the face of astounding adversity. Despite being met with

discrimination and racism, they built flourishing communities and

contributed to the growth of our province. Sikhi has, as one of its

central tenets, empathy and caring for others, which translates into a

passionate love for social and political justice.

That spiritual guidance guided the community through incredibly

hard times. From the struggles surrounding the Komagata Maru to

the anti-colonial movement that supported freedom in India, Ireland and

many other colonies, the Sikhs of British Columbia showed up in

force.

That generosity of spirit created unique, multicultural

communities and enterprises like the one created by Mayo Singh in

Paldi.

By the way, if you’re ever near Duncan, please go and visit.

You’ll see images of school children from all over the world studying

and playing together in a time where the norm was extreme racism and

segregation.

This month we’re celebrating Vaisakhi all over British Columbia —

in Surrey, Vancouver and here in Victoria. I encourage you all to go out

and visit.

ORGAN DONATION AND LOGAN BOULET

G. Kyllo: Canadians across the country were heartbroken to hear the news of

the Humboldt bus crash on April 6, 2018. Of the 29 bus passengers, 16

tragically lost their lives.

Of those we lost, Broncos defenceman Logan Boulet became a beacon

of hope through the decision to donate his organs, helping to save the

lives of six people. Logan’s generosity sparked a national conversation

about organ donation, inspiring more than 150,000 Canadians to register

as donors in the days and weeks that followed. This is known as the

Logan Boulet effect.

In remembrance of Logan and in honour of the crash victims and

their families, April 7 has been designated as Green Shirt Day. It’s a

day for Canadians to unite in memory but also to act, to talk about

organ donation and to take the significant step of registering as a

donor. It’s crucial to recognize that each organ donor registration is

more than a goodwill gesture. It holds the extraordinary power to save

up to eight lives, and this potential magnifies the impact that each of

us can make.

[10:25 a.m.]

While 90 percent of Canadians endorse organ donation, only 32

percent have formally registered. Despite improvements in donation rates

over the past decade, the urgency remains. Every year approximately 250

Canadians lose their lives waiting for a transplant.

On April 7, I encourage everyone to wear a green shirt, to

encourage your loved ones to register as organ donors and to consider

registering yourself at transplant.bc.ca.

EASTER CELEBRATION EVENTS

IN CAMPBELL

RIVER

M. Babchuk: Campbell River was hop, hop, hopping last weekend where hundreds

of youngsters and their families participated in the Downtown Campbell

River BIA Easter celebration event.

It all started at about 11 a.m. and went through the afternoon.

The Easter bunny was alive and well and taking selfies with families all

across Robert Ostler Park and enjoying pops and snacks by RE/MAX Check

Realty.

Down the street at Spirit Square, we saw the peanut gallery on

stage with Shoo Shoo the clown and activities through the square like

Bounce-A-Rama castles, cotton candy and snow cones, Gateway Foursquare

Church games booth, mini donuts from Canada’s Best Donuts, face painting

with Playful Spirit and Magical Faces, the Pretzel Guy, Happy Camper

candy and activities courtesy of the city of Campbell River program

staff. Food vendors like hot dogs and Sinfully Delicious were also on

site.

It was a good time had by all, but I’d like to acknowledge that

these events don’t happen without a huge amount of collaboration and

community support. I would like to thank the Campbell River community

sponsors of 100.7 Raven FM, Associated Tire, the Rotary Club of Campbell

River, Campbell River London Drugs, Campbell River Save-On-Foods,

Campbell River Shoppers Drug Mart, Campbell River Thrifty Foods, once

again RE/MAX Check Realty and the city of Campbell River for bringing

lots of smiles to a lot of little faces.

A big shout-out to the Downtown Campbell River BIA executive

director Jan Wade and co-chairs Heather Gordon Murphy and Lisa Whitmore

for putting it all together and handing out over 300 Easter baskets and

bubbles for all the kids.

A special thanks for my grandchildren and for all the kids who

participated. Sometimes we need to stop, look through the eyes of happy

children, just to see the wonders that this world has.

IMPORTANCE OF WATER

AND IMPACT OF

DROUGHT

S. Furstenau: I felt so distressed last weekend when I heard the news that

Mexico City, with a population of 22 million people, is running out of

water. I can’t begin to wrap my head around what it means when a city

that size doesn’t have water. Already neighbourhoods and, of course, the

poorest neighbourhoods are dealing with a chronic shortage of water and

are relying on either government deliveries or private water cartels

selling them water.

This is a nightmare on so many levels. After air, it is water that

we rely on for our survival. We can last a minute or two without air. We

can last only a few days without water, yet we do not treat it like the

absolute precious life-giving force that it is. We misuse it. We waste

it. We pollute it, and some treat it like a commodity, knowing that when

it comes down to it, people faced with thirst will pay dearly for a sip

of water.

In 2015, when I was area director in the Cowichan Valley regional

district, we had a report from staff that one of our water systems in

the north end of the region was precariously close to running out of

water. It was May, and we were already in serious drought.

As we asked questions of staff, I started to cry. I still feel the

weight that I felt that day in my chest. The drought we were in, in

2015, didn’t end. It has deepened. Yet there appears to be the most

magical thinking of all that’s happening — the thinking that we can keep

doing the same things and somehow arrive at different outcomes than the

ones that we are getting now.

Today I feel the same absolutely devastating weight I felt in my

chest in May of 2015. Water is life, and we have to care for it and

value it the way we value life itself.

SCIENCE AND POLICY-MAKING

R. Russell: Science is a way of knowing. It relies on adherence to a

scientific method. In short, look. Be skeptical about everything. Think.

Challenge your belief in a way that others can copy. Prove yourself

wrong, because you can’t ever be proven right in science. Rinse and

repeat.

It is this process that is the magic of science. This process is

what fuels the addiction to curiosity and to wonder of many scientists.

I started my professional life trying to illuminate things through

science, trying to clarify apolitical information that was important for

society.

[10:30 a.m.]

I realized quickly that information wasn’t society’s

rate-leavening step. We knew enough about emissions, for example, and

the negative impact on our economies, social cohesion, ecological

health, yet we still weren’t seeing policy created in step with the

evident risks.

The real bottleneck was the people in policy-making chambers like

this across the globe, not being able to effectively leverage the

insights of the scientific community on behalf of the people they

represent.

Wendi Zhou of the Canadian Science Policy Centre shared a thought

with me yesterday, building upon this idea, saying: “It is important for

the future of our society to strengthen the connections between science

and policy-making.”

But science won’t tell us what to do in this place. Our role here

is to take the values we champion and overlay them onto the science,

onto the boundaries of uncertainty that science identifies and onto

science’s expectations of the outcomes of those decisions.

From the IRPP report in 2016: “The input of science into policy

should therefore be viewed not as advice on what should be done, but

rather in terms of what is known, what is unknown, and how sure we are

about it.”

Whether it’s crafting risk reduction policy to navigate the

onslaught of climate-related disasters, defining legislation to optimize

the benefits of AI or painting a clear picture of the danger of Meta’s

algorithm on the health of our children, science has a great deal to

offer us as policy-makers. It cannot offer solutions, but it does offer

help. We just need to be ready to receive it.

In two weeks, we will have about two dozen scientists visiting

these halls through the Science Meets Parliament B.C. program to help. I

hope we all look forward to building those bridges together.

Speaker’s Statement

DECORUM AND BEHAVIOUR

DURING QUESTION

PERIOD

The Speaker: Members, again another gentle reminder. When people are asking

questions, answering the questions, please be brief so everybody has

equal opportunity and so both sides have the same time in question

period.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

E. Sturko: The NDP’s decriminalization policy of illicit drug use in

hospitals is having devastating impacts on patients and health care

staff.

Yesterday the B.C. Nurses Union confirmed that the contents of the

health authority memo reflect the reality of rampant illicit drug use

that’s being allowed within hospitals and is compromising safety and

care. Nurses face a daily reality of drug-fueled violence, from having

drug smoke purposely blown in their faces to being kicked, punched,

shoved and even stabbed while bathrooms are being lit on

fire.

Why is the Premier refusing to prioritize the safety of nurses and

patients over the use of crystal meth, cocaine and fentanyl in

hospitals?

Hon. A. Dix: The government, in all of our efforts in working with the B.C.

Nurses Union, in working with the HEU, in working with the HSA, in

working with communities, prioritizes the safety of our health care

workers above all things.

We also recognize that many people who present in hospitals are

dealing with severe health issues — some mental health, some addictions,

some physical health issues — that require them to meet the very high

standard of being admitted into our hospitals.

There are clear policies, as there are in Northern Health, with

respect to these matters. Those clear policies are laid out in all

facilities in Northern Health and in all the other health

authorities.

Possession and use of controlled substances are prohibited for all

clients in emergency departments, any unit where clients under the age

of 18 are present, in-patient psychiatric units and in-patient

withdrawal units. This is just a fact. It is absolutely prohibited to

have weapons in hospitals.

Now, does it occur, just as it occurs in the community, that

events take place in the hospital that are contrary to those rules? They

do occur. I meet with nurses all the time on these questions.

That’s why we have taken unprecedented action, not because of the

B.C. Nurses Union and because of nurses, but with them to improve access

to security for all reasons in our hospital, because of the priority we

give to protecting those who do the extraordinary task of helping people

get well in acute care settings.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

[10:35 a.m.]

E. Sturko: The leaked memo couldn’t have been more clear that this government

is not prioritizing the safety of health care workers. Illicit drug use

is rampant in our hospitals, and it’s a direct and disturbing result of

this NDP government’s decriminalization policies outlined in a health

authority memo.

Under this NDP government, families face the dangers of meth,

cocaine and fentanyl use in spaces as routine as the local Tim Hortons

and as critical as the emergency department. Shockingly, nurses say one

of the most affected areas are maternity wards, where infants are

exposed to toxic substances.

Why isn’t the Premier putting the rights of patients and nurses

and newborn babies to be safe in a hospital over the rights of open drug

use of meth, crack cocaine and fentanyl?

Hon. A. Dix: The member talks about smoking substances in hospitals. They are

prohibited — period. Does it mean that that never happens? Of course it

doesn’t mean that never happens. But it is absolutely not allowed to do

that. This is not anything that’s changed recently. It was true ten

years ago, it was true 20 years ago, and it’s true now.

S. Bond: Nurses were listening to the minister’s answers yesterday, and

they were outraged by his response. To suggest that a memo from the

health authority was simply poorly worded and to dismiss the reality

that nurses face every single day is nothing but shameful.

It has gotten so bad that Victoria General Hospital has been

forced to install safety alarms in the maternity ward to detect toxic

fentanyl smoke in the maternity ward. Imagine being a nurse in the

maternity ward where a blinking light means you now scramble for a

respirator to deal with toxic fumes. That’s the reality for nurses at

Victoria General.

Why is the Premier prioritizing a policy that facilitates —

there’s no other way to describe it — drug use, drug trafficking,

possession of weapons over the rights of nurses and newborn babies to be

safe from exposure to heroin, meth, crack cocaine and

fentanyl?

Hon. A. Dix: It’s very straightforward. The policy is very straightforward:

it’s not allowed — period.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh. Members, wait. Please let the minister finish it.

Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: Hon. Speaker, the policy of Northern Health and all of the other

health authorities is clear on these points, and it’s been clear for

decades. You don’t smoke anything in a hospital.

That doesn’t mean that those issues don’t occur. That is why we’ve

taken such significant steps, working with nurses who I’ve met with

regularly on this very issue that we….

Interjection.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, the continuing narrative….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member. Member, please.

Hon. A. Dix: You know, they ask a question that’s an extremely serious question

for nurses, the ones I talk to, and they can listen to the answer. The

answer is straightforward. It is absolutely not allowed.

We have added, significantly, 320 security officers to come in

place to support our public health care workers at the behest and with

the involvement of the HEU, of the BCNU, of the HSA, and we’re going to

continue to take those steps to see that people are

protected.

It’s never been allowed that you can smoke in a hospital, at least

not in recent times, not since we changed views significantly on smoking

some decades ago. It’s not been allowed at all. It’s not allowed

now.

Northern Health has explicit policies that say it’s prohibited and

that hospitals are smoke-free.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. A. Dix: The members may say that’s not the case. They have explicit

policies that say it is, and I encourage them to read them.

The Speaker: Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

[10:40 a.m.]

S. Bond: You know, the minister stands up every day and touts the fact

there are security guards in hospitals. It is absolutely appalling that

we are in a state where we actually have to have security guards in

hospitals so that people can go to work and be safe.

It’s not just Victoria. It is not just Northern Health…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

S. Bond: …it is across the province.

Robert LaBelle, a nurse of over 20 years at Shuswap Lake Hospital,

wrote to the Premier a month ago. He describes walking into a bathroom

to aid a patient: “I was met with thick, acrid smoke and inhaled what

turned out to be fentanyl.”

He explains how this danger could easily happen to an unsuspecting

grandmother visiting the hospital and highlights that illicit drug use

is not only repeatedly found in hospital rooms. It is facilitated. That

is from nurse Robert LaBelle.

How dare the minister callously dismiss concerns that nurses like

Robert are expressing every single day in British Columbia by trying to

suggest that a health authority memo was simply poorly

worded?

Hon. A. Dix: The opposition now is opposed to the bringing in service of

security guards, of improving their treatment, of improving

security.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members.

Member for Surrey South.

Members will come to order.

Hon. A. Dix: We’ve had security guards in hospitals for some time. What the

B.C. Nurses Union and what the Hospital Employees Union and the Health

Sciences Association asked for was an upgrading of that, was a

deprivatization of those services — something that the previous

government, of course, pursued as a matter of policy.

We have made those changes and added 320 security guards,

relational security officers, very significantly trained, in 26 acute

care hospitals, and we plan to expand that. It’s not the answer to every

problem, but it was specifically requested by the very nurses the member

is talking about. So to be derisive about it….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Member for Surrey South, please come to order.

Hon. A. Dix: To be derisive about it is not the right approach.

What occurs if people are smoking in hospitals….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Please continue and conclude.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Stop it. Please.

The minister will conclude.

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you. It’s absolutely not allowed, clearly stated in health

authority policies, to smoke anywhere in a hospital.

We are taking the steps to support our health care workers, to

support the very nurses members of the opposition talked about, and

we’re doing it by working with them.

We supported and funded SwitchBC, which is an organization that’s

designed to improve those things and was heavily involved in the

relation of the security model. SwitchBC needed to be created because

the agencies supporting the occupational health and safety of health

care workers was eliminated by the previous government.

The Speaker: Member for Prince George–Valemount, second

supplemental.

S. Bond: The minister can stand in this chamber and try to twist my words

all he wants, but let’s be clear. I am going to hold him accountable for

the safety of nurses in British Columbia every single day.

If the minister wants to talk about clear policy, how about a

memo, Minister? Here’s what it says: “Under direction from risk

management and professional practice….” It is a memo.

Let me remind the minister how clearly the information is

articulated. Item 4: “Patients can use substances while in a hospital in

their rooms. They can either be provided with a Narcan kit or have one

available.” Item 6: “We don’t restrict if they’re dropping off

substances.” Item at the bottom of the list: “Ensure that patients know

they do not need to hide their substances and can keep them in their

belongings.” How clear is that?

[10:45 a.m.]

The minister can try to absolutely point the finger somewhere

else. This is on his shoulders. It is happening in hospitals every

single day. It sounds an awful lot like illicit drug use and drug

trafficking to me and to nurses and to British Columbians.

Here’s the challenge. Will the minister today issue a directive to

every single health authority that illicit drug use is not permitted,

weapons are not allowed, and the safety of nurses and patients will be

prioritized over the open use of meth, crack cocaine and

fentanyl?

The Speaker: Minister of Health.

S. Bond: Here’s the memo.

Hon. A. Dix: The hon. member asked a serious question and starts heckling

before I even speak.

I take these issues very seriously, because I meet with nurses and

health care workers, and we work together on these issues. Weapons are

never, are not allowed…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: ….cannot be allowed, will not be allowed in hospitals — period.

That is health authority policy.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: It is clarified. There’s a health authority policy. I’ll happily

share it with the hon. member. It is clear.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members.

Minister, please continue.

Hon. A. Dix: It is absolutely not allowed. We do not…. We work with our health

care workers, because there are, as the members know, a growing

number…

I take this issue unbelievably seriously. We work with nurses and

health sciences professionals and health care workers every day on these

issues. When people enter our hospitals, they enter, often, with very

significant health care conditions. It’s our job….

For example, at St. Paul’s Hospital, it’s absolutely true that

there is harm reduction on site because of the very specific conditions

of that hospital.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. A. Dix: We support nurses and support health care workers every

day.

This is an attempt to ignore the policies that health authorities

have that are clear and straightforward. I don’t need to issue

any….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, the question was very clear. Now let’s hear the

answer.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Please. We don’t have to repeat the question, member.

Minister, conclude please.

Hon. A. Dix: When people come to hospital, we do everything we can to help them

get better and to keep people safe. That will continue to be our policy

every day.

OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY

PROFITS AND

TAXATION

S. Furstenau: Thousands of British Columbians face impossible choices. Buy

groceries or heat the house? Keep up with bills or pay rent on time?

Politicians are ignoring the real causes of the cost-of-living crisis

and scapegoating putting a price on carbon pollution.

One thing driving inflation is price gouging by oil and gas

companies. Shell, one of the main proponents behind LNG Canada and a

beneficiary of subsidies and tax credits in this province, made $28

billion in profits last year. We can’t allow CEOs and shareholders to

get richer and richer from climate destruction while average British

Columbians pay the price.

According to recent polling, 62 percent of Canadians say that

Canada should introduce a tax on the oil and gas sector’s record

profits. A windfall profit tax could help alleviate the high cost of

living in B.C.

My question is to the Premier. Will his government stop giving a

free ride to harmful industries and push the federal government to

implement a windfall profits tax?

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you very much to the member opposite for the question. Let

me address the issue of fossil fuel subsidies that she

raises.

I think the member understands that it’s been something that our

government has been very focused on. For far too long, we’ve had a

broken system. This government has taken extensive work to fix a very

outdated oil and gas royalty system and, in fact, eliminated the largest

subsidy on record, the deep-well royalty program.

[10:50 a.m.]

Going forward, we’ve taken strong action on industry like the LNG

industry through our new energy action framework, putting an oil and gas

emissions cap in place, ensuring that all new permitted facilities are

net zero by 2030. We consider that to be the way forward that balances

the interests of all British Columbians, knowing we need to take strong

action on climate, that we need to hold companies accountable for the

emissions that they emit and that we continue to ensure that all British

Columbians can take strong action on climate.

The Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I’d really love it if the government would take strong action on

answering the question I actually asked, so I’ll try again.

Shell took home $28 billion in profits last year.

The question I’m asking the Premier is: will he push the federal

government to put a windfall profits tax in place so that these

companies that are causing climate disasters and costing British

Columbians enormous amounts of money will pay their fair

share?

My question again is to the Premier. Will he push the federal

government to put a windfall profit tax in place?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I think the member knows that most of our members on this side of

the House care deeply about inequality in our society, and when we

see….

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Most members of this House. I can’t speak for the opposition, but

what I can say to the member is this. The federal government has

policies and reforms that they’re looking at. What we can talk to the

member about is what we’re doing here in British Columbia.

What we’re doing here in British Columbia is we are making sure

that those that are the wealthiest in our province pay a little bit more

so that we can ensure that everyone that is struggling in our

communities has a little bit more support. That is the inequality that

we fight for every day — inequality in health care, inequality in

housing, inequality in society overall.

We’re committed to that work. We’ve been doing that since 2017,

and we’re going to continue to do that work in the years

forward.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND IMPACT ON

COMMUNITIES

B. Banman: Under the decriminalization and safe supply policies of this NDP

government, open drug dens like Vancouver’s notorious downtown East

Hastings are popping up in small towns and communities across B.C. What

used to be big-city problems are ravaging small communities in British

Columbia as addicts are bused from Vancouver and Victoria into

communities all across B.C.

As it turns out, when government takes away tax money from working

families who are literally living paycheque to paycheque and uses it to

buy addictive drugs for addicts, we end up with more drug users, more

crime, more chaos and fewer safe streets for people and families. Who

would have seen this coming, other than anyone with an ounce of common

sense?

In the beautiful community of Courtenay, in the Comox Valley,

Cliffe Avenue and 6th is the intersection where open drug use, chaos and

crime spills out into businesses and residential streets.

My question to the NDP Premier: will you apologize to the

residents of Courtenay and the Comox Valley for the NDP pro–drug use

policies which have brought big-city addiction, chaos and crime into

their small, safe community?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Given this member’s history of how he treats the most vulnerable

people in his community, I’m not surprised by the question I heard

today. This continuously dehumanizing the most vulnerable people in our

society is not a new trait. It’s actually on brand for this new B.C.

Conservative Party.

The suggestion that people are being loaded up on buses and moved

to communities is one we’ve been hearing for a long time, but the data

does not support it. The data shows that, overwhelmingly, the

populations that are struggling communities are people within our

communities, our loved ones. They’re the people that we grew up with, we

went to school with. They are, in many cases, our kids.

The member talks about Courtenay-Comox. We have been doing a lot

of work in that community. The MLA for Courtenay-Comox and I are working

with mayor and council to address challenges in that community. There’s

a lack of housing available. There’s a welcome centre, a shelter right

now that wasn’t purpose-built, that wasn’t ideal for the

community.

[10:55 a.m.]

That’s why last week we announced we’re purchasing a brand-new

parcel of land. We’re building a purpose-built shelter, building

affordable housing so that we can get people the supports they need, get

them housed. Get them housed, get them the supports they need. That’s

how you get things done — not rhetoric, dehumanizing people, but working

with communities to find solutions.

That’s what we’ve been doing every single day.

The Speaker: House Leader, Fourth Party, supple­mental.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM

AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN

HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

B. Banman: It would be nice if, once, this minister stood up and talked about

detox and actually getting people to sobriety.

Yesterday we learned that this Premier’s pro–drug use policies are

also harming health care workers, who are already overworked and

overwhelmed, facing the worst staffing crisis our province’s health care

system has ever seen. We learned that this NDP Premier is forcing health

care workers to simply accept illicit drug use in hospitals, including

fumes from smoking drugs, which already made one nurse sick.

To be clear, if you smoke crack in an ER in B.C., that’s fine, but

if you’re behind on your jabs, you can’t work as a nurse. You get fired.

The problem with this NDP government is that no one in the Premier’s

office has any common sense.

My question to the Premier: does he honestly think being cared for

by a B.C. nurse who hasn’t taken the jab is less safe for patients and

infants than inhaling crack fumes?

Hon. A. Dix: Of course it isn’t allowed. It wouldn’t be allowed. What the hon.

member said isn’t true. I don’t expect a higher standard….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: I think on all of these questions, from the overdose public health

emergency to the COVID-19 pandemic, that the member also, for reasons of

his own, has raised here, we take strong, evidence-based health care

policies that focus on helping people. We’re going to continue to do

that. That is what our public health care system absolutely should

do.

We need to treat people with addiction problems and addiction

issues with health care responses. That’s what the public health care

system is doing throughout, and I think to suggest otherwise is simply

incorrect. To suggest that it would ever be allowed, that someone could

smoke in a hospital is incorrect, and the member knows it.

GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ANTISEMITISM

AND RESPONSE TO

ISSUES

S. Robinson: Imagine you’re a young adult on a university campus, perhaps

living on your own for the very first time. You’re excited and mostly

nervous. But early in the semester, you find yourself isolated and

afraid on your campus as hundreds of your fellow students don keffiyehs

and face coverings, chanting “intifada.” They wear the uniform and shout

the mantra exhibited by Hamas terrorists who slaughtered, raped and

kidnapped people your own age at an Israeli music festival on October 7.

Imagine what that must feel like.

On February 28, the Premier was asked about a potential referendum

being proposed to the UBC AMS leadership. More than 1,200 UBC students

signed the petition, asking the AMS to cut all ties with Israel,

including cancelling the lease for Hillel House, a safe haven for Jewish

students on campus, one that has existed for over 75 years. Jewish

students have felt intimidated and afraid on B.C. campuses for months,

and Hillel House is a safe space for them in this very difficult

time.

Mr. Speaker, I’m going to roll my two questions into one, given

the time constraint.

My first question was initially for the new Minister of

Post-Secondary Education, who shared with me her belief. “Government

does stand up to antisemitism, absolutely.” I checked to see if the new

minister had reached out to Hillel House to check on Jewish students, to

hear their concerns, to identify ways government can ensure their

physical, emotional and spiritual safety on campus.

I’m going to answer the question for her, because I heard this

morning, again, that in fact, the minister has not reached out at all to

Hillel House, two months into her role.

When the Premier was asked for his comments on the AMS proposed

referendum, this is what the Premier had to say: “A small group of

students, I understand, is requesting that the AMS sanction a referendum

about whether or not Hillel House at UBC should be allowed to continue

to exist.”

[11:00 a.m.]

He did, however, go on to say that there are a couple of ways to

look at this. First is, obviously, it’s illegal on its face. “The B.C.

human rights code implicates the AMS, just like it implicates all

organizations.”

The Premier’s first comment is to minimize the impact by

describing more than 1,200 signatures as a small group of students. Then

he suggests that because it’s illegal, the Jewish students should take

comfort because they can just sue the AMS.

The Premier refused to show leadership and instead passed the

responsibility to the AMS when he said that “there’s an opportunity for

leadership among the AMS leadership.”

Members of the Jewish community on campuses, in K-to-12 education

and in the B.C. public service do not feel safe, and the Premier’s lack

of direction or action exacerbates antisemitism in our province. This is

why members of the Jewish community have been calling on the Premier to

create a plan to address increasing and rising antisemitism in his

government and in the wider society.

My question is to the Premier or anyone on the front bench who

would like to answer this question. There is an opportunity for

leadership for this government. When will the Premier and his government

show leadership and share their plan to address antisemitism in our

schools, in post-secondary education institutions and in the B.C. public

service?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for the question.

I think, first off, it’s important to say that we acknowledge the

pain and fear felt by many within the Jewish community since October 7.

We’ve been hearing from members from the Jewish community. I have been

meeting with members of the Jewish community from my community and

sharing with them and hearing from them about where we can go from this

place that we are now.

Now, I know that we have taken a lot of steps. I think it’s

important to acknowledge that perhaps the member feels that we haven’t

done enough, but we’re committed to continue to do more on

this.

I think it’s important for the public to note that since October

7, the Premier made a statement in this House calling out antisemitism

and Islamophobia. On October 30, since then, Holocaust education was

launched in all schools across British Columbia. On November 15, we

provided security funding for religious communities and organizations.

We launched a racist incident helpline. On February 16, we updated the

B.C. prosecution service, and we continue to work with the community to

ensure our ways.

The Premier did say in this House that we were hoping the AMS

would show leadership, and then they did. Overwhelmingly they voted

against that petition that was brought forward. It’s a reminder that our

communities are strong.

Everyone wants to make sure that we continue to create safe,

inclusive spaces. The Minister of Advanced Education has been meeting

with every single university, meeting with the leadership on ensuring

that they are putting in plans to make sure that everyone feels safe in

their community.

The member knows that this is a challenging file. There’s a lot

happening on this file. But making sure our kids are safe in

school….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, please.

Hon. R. Kahlon: This is not a topic for heckling from the opposite side. I think

this is a topic that is so important that we all should be….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Please conclude.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member says that we…. This is what leadership is. It’s all the

work we’ve been doing bringing back the anti-racism strategy, bringing a

Human Rights Commissioner.

We are committed to this work. This is important. Since day one,

since forming government, we have made it a priority to make sure that

everyone feels safe in British Columbia. Yes, we have more work to do.

We’re going to continue to do that important work.

The Speaker: Members, the Chair is willing to allow one more question as long

as it’s very brief, 30 seconds, and also provided that there are no

interjections when the answer is provided so we are not going way over

limit.

GAS PRICES AND FUEL TAXES

T. Halford: Gas prices are expected to skyrocket to up to $2.18 a litre. The

NDP have caused the highest gas prices and gas taxes in Canada, but

instead of cutting taxes, the NDP have blamed gouging. They set up an

expensive website to duplicate gasbuddy.com, and then they did

nothing.

People don’t want taxpayer-funded websites. They want relief at

the pump.

When will the Premier listen to British Columbians and cut the gas

tax when it comes to gasoline?

[11:05 a.m.]

Hon. G. Heyman: We know that British Columbians are struggling with affordability.

We know that part of that affordability, as well as part of their

concern for their kids’ future, is about climate change.

That’s why we have a strong climate plan, and that’s why we take

actions like putting $500 back in people’s pockets through the enhanced

B.C. family benefit bonus this year, along with a range of other

measures that support affordability by keeping fees and rates low and

stable, unlike the government that sat on this side of the House before

us.

[End of question period.]

Motions Without Notice

REFERRAL OF CLEANBC GO ELECTRIC

PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

PRACTICES

TO AUDITOR GENERAL REVIEW

T. Stone: I seek leave to move Motion 25, which is on the order paper in my

name.

Leave granted.

P. Milobar: We canvassed this as a question at the end of question period on

Tuesday, but last night at the Public Accounts Committee, we did try a

similar motion.

The Speaker: Member, I am just advised that the member for Kamloops–South

Thompson has to move the motion to start first. Leave has been

granted.

T. Stone: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I assumed that reading the

actual motion was sufficient.

I move Motion 25, which is on the order paper in my

name.

[Be it resolved that pursuant to

section 13, subsection (2) of the

Auditor General Act , the Legislative Assembly request that

the Auditor General undertake an examination of the Government of

British Columbia’s CleanBC Go Electric Program, including but not

limited to the Commercial Vehicle Innovation Challenge and the Advanced

Research and Commercialization Program, administered by MNP LLP, with a

view to examining any potential conflict of interest relating to program

administrators charging success fees to successful applicants who use

their advisory services.]

P. Milobar: It’s a very straightforward motion. We tried doing this at Public

Accounts last night. Unfortunately, the government does have the

majority on that committee. They were not willing to try to instruct the

Auditor General, although it is within the mandate of Public Accounts to

do just that.

Really, this is about getting to the bottom of a matter that has

been raised that has very serious potential ramifications if it bears

out to be accurate. The opposition has strong evidence that there is

something to look into there, and the best place for that would be the

Auditor General, who has the ability to dig into this as an issue of

importance, to make sure that there is not any type of a kickback scheme

or corruption or anything untoward going on within programs that are

being funded by the province of British Columbia and adjudicated by

outside parties.

That is simply the basis of this, to try to get some daylight onto

what is actually happening so that people can have confidence in a

program that is fully funded by carbon taxes. At a time when there’s a

lot of carbon tax debate going on in the public, it’s pretty hard to

keep building public support for a tax if people aren’t very confident

about how those funds are being expended with any proper oversight or

not.

That is the crux of the motion, and we do hope that the chamber

will support it.

Hon. R. Kahlon: The member already answered the question that he’s asking. The

Auditor General has the ability to look into these matters if they

choose to, so we will not be supporting this motion.

S. Furstenau: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this. I support the

motion.

I think that it is really important that British Columbians can

look at processes by which funds are being granted under any program in

B.C., but particularly when it comes to government programming, and be

assured that there is absolute transparency and absolute clarity about

how these programs are being administered.

[11:10 a.m.]

Who is adjudicating the decisions, and what are the processes for

the adjudicators, and how it is, in this case, that it appears to be

that the adjudicator is also a body that can receive a fee, a success

fee, for successful applicants for grant programs under this

program.

I think it is really important for the government to come out in a

very transparent way with the public and be able to demonstrate that

this program is being appropriately handled; that it is being handled in

a way that does not create any distrust or lack of trust for those who

are applying for the program, for those who are going through the

process of applying for these grants; that they can be assured that the

granting process is transparent, accountable, fair and administered in a

way that all British Columbians would look to it and say: “I understand

that. I can see how this is being done. I can see that it’s accountable

and fair.”

In this case, I think there are a lot of questions that are coming

up, and I don’t think that there was a particularly clear answer given

the other day when this was raised. I think that it is an appropriate

question to be asking, given the importance it is to maintain public

trust.

J. Rustad: I support this motion as well, going forward.

The Conservative Party of British Columbia has received evidence

from numerous companies about this program, one company in particular

that was told by MNP to add 20 percent on to the contract being put

forward so that they could be paying a fee to MNP, who then would

adjudicate the program for making decisions.

Clearly, there is a serious problem with this program. It needs to

be looked into. It should be taken seriously by this government. Yes,

the Auditor General has the ability to look into it themselves, but,

clearly, government should be very concerned about how taxpayers’ money

is being spent on this, particularly from the carbon tax.

This does need to be looked into, and I’d encourage government to

reconsider its position and instruct the Auditor General to look into

this so that it can clear up this matter and make sure that there isn’t

anything that is going on that the government should perhaps be ashamed

of, going into the election.

E. Ross: If this issue is voted down by a majority of the votes, then it

becomes a partisan issue. This shouldn’t be a partisan issue. This,

actually, is what this institution is supposed to stand for. We’re

supposed to be open, transparent and accountable with taxpayers’ dollars

and the policies, legislation and regulations that flow from taxpayers’

dollars.

There are hints that there’s corruption here, coming from a party

that’s been appointed by government to distribute dollars for a clean

energy plan, for a B.C. company that, fairly, wants to be subsidized by

B.C. tax dollars, and they’re accusing a party of not playing fair. And

87 MLAs in this institution swore to uphold what this institution is

supposed to stand for. We are not doing our job as MLAs if we allow this

issue to be swept under the rug.

This has already been brought to public accounts and has been

voted down. The House Leader has already said they will not support

this, meaning that the majority NDP government will vote this down so we

don’t even get to uncover what’s really happening at the lower levels of

this.

The opposition is trying to do our job. We’re trying to hold the

government accountable. More importantly, we’re trying to uphold what

this institution is supposed to be here for. We’re supposed to uphold 87

ridings’ interests and the interests of British Columbians, and as a

province. The reputation of the B.C. Legislature is at stake here as

well. It’s not just government.

What are we doing here if we’re not actually doing what the people

elect us to do? It’s going to be a shame if this issue is swept under

the rug and this is voted down by a majority government, simply for

politics.

[11:15 a.m.]

A. Olsen: I am going to stand and ask that the government reconsider,

retract whatever statements need to be retracted, and just vote in

favour of this motion. The reality of it is that there is pretty

overwhelming evidence that there’s something that needs to be looked at.

Let’s look at it. If the government is so certain that it isn’t what it

is, then this will all pass.

I think to have members from government talking about this being

political theatre…. This is the work of government. They remember when

they were in opposition. This is exactly the work that they did when

they were in opposition.

This is exactly the work of opposition: to critique government

programs and to ensure that they’re being delivered fairly, to ensure

that there aren’t corporations and business and other entities that are

unfairly benefiting from government programs, unreasonably benefiting

from government programs, being in a position not only to take in the

applications but also to adjudicate the applications, and then reaching

out and saying: “Hey, we’ll prepare the applications for you, at a

fee.”

That seems to be smoke, and you know what they say: where there’s

smoke, there’s fire. I think that there is an opportunity here for

government to reverse the decision that they made, to open this up, to

have a look at it and to prove to us that the smoke is just smoke and

that maybe there is no fire.

B. Banman: I, too, would also encourage the government to rethink its

position on this. We do have a duty to ensure that taxpayer dollars are

being appropriately spent. If this government chooses to not have the

Auditor General look into this particular case, what it says to the

voters is that they have something to hide.

Because a third party is inappropriately, allegedly, taking

advantage of a system, it does not necessarily mean that the government

is complicit, so a wise government that does have nothing to hide would

open it up and allow the Auditor General to do the job that should be

demanded by the public. Failure to direct him to do that, failure to

have this investigated by an independent party, I think, is a travesty

of the system that we have actually put in place. It becomes very

partisan.

The taxpayers want to know that their money is being spent

appropriately. It’s as simple as that. There should be nothing to

hide.

T. Stone: Well, I think we’ve heard some very good points, as a number of

members across the entire opposition parties have intervened and

expressed, I think, some very valid reasons as to why the government has

a choice that they need to make here.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members, please.

Let’s hear one member at a time.

T. Stone: The reality is this. Over a number of months now, the official

opposition caucus has been in receipt of phone calls, emails. We have

had face-to-face meetings with individuals, with companies that have

been actively engaged in the grant program in question and that have

come forward and have made some very serious accusations and expressed

some very significant reservations about the nature of this program, in

terms of its adjudication and related success fees that are provided to

the adjudicator, MNP LLP.

Now, the opposition is not saying that these are anything more

than allegations, but what we are saying is that this is exactly what

the role of the Auditor General should be all about and is all

about.

[11:20 a.m.]

There is an opportunity here for the government to do the right

thing, pursuant to subsection 13(2) of the Auditor General Act, to

direct the Auditor General to conduct an audit looking into this

matter.

Now, this is not a gotcha moment from the opposition. We asked

questions of the Minister of Energy and Mines earlier this week about

this exact matter. The minister skated right past it, didn’t acknowledge

it at all and gave an answer to a totally different topic.

As part of our role, as the official opposition, on the Public

Accounts Committee…. Last evening the member for Fraser-Nicola and the

member for Kamloops–North Thompson brought forward a motion,

specifically brought forward by the member for Fraser-Nicola, very

similar to this one here today, to the members on the Public Accounts

Committee. It also has the statutory ability to direct the Auditor

General to look into this matter.

The NDP members, the government majority on that committee, said

no. The only other opportunity…. The last chance or final effort to

provide an opportunity for the government to do the right thing here is

pursuant to the motion that I have brought forward today. This would

require the Auditor General to look into this matter.

Requiring 20 percent success fees on grants, success fees to the

company that’s actually doing the adjudication, if true, is wrong on so

many levels. That practice, if it is happening, needs to stop. The only

way that British Columbians will know is if there’s an audit and an

investigation into this. That’s the role of the Auditor General. Today

the government members have the opportunity to do the right

thing.

I would point out one final piece, so as not to forget to enter

this into the record. Some of the individuals that we have met with and

who have expressed concerns met with staff members of the office of the

Minister of Energy and Mines about a month ago and expressed exactly

these concerns.

They walked the minister’s staff through what they were being told

they needed to do to have a higher degree of possibility of success in

receiving the grants from this program, meaning: “Pay the 20 percent.

Agree to the 20 percent success fee, or you’re likely not going to have

an opportunity to receive the grant.” That was brought forward to the

staff or the Minister of Energy and Mines. That is a fact.

This is not, in any way, scurrilous. This isn’t, in any way,

rumours. These are actual companies, actual people, that have been

trying to do the right thing. They have tried to reach out to the

minister. They have met with the minister’s staff. They’ve expressed

these concerns. They were, essentially, patted on the head: “Thank you

for coming forward.” Nothing has changed. Then we have had subsequent

examples brought forward to us from other individuals.

In

summary, I would hope that the government, in hearing, frankly,

interventions from all opposition parties, would change its mind here,

depart from the position that the Government House Leader entered into

the record moments ago, and agree to this motion to direct the Auditor

General to look into this.

It’s to get the answers, to dig into it, to make sure — if there

is anything inappropriate happening, if there is anything corrupt

happening, if there is anything that is impugning the ability of private

individuals and companies from accessing grants due to success-fee

requirements, and so forth — that that information is brought to the

light of day, that the windows are thrown open, that air is allowed in

and that changes be made as required.

[11:25 a.m.]

Again, we urge the government to support this motion, to support

the transparency, the accountability, the fairness that must exist in

all grant programs — particularly in the grant programs that are at the

centre of what, we believe, is potentially some significant corruption

and that, certainly, stinks to high heaven. British Columbians deserve

to know what is going on here.

The Speaker: Minister of Energy, Mines.

Hon. J. Osborne: Thank you very much, hon. Speaker.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Sorry, Minister. The member has al­ready concluded the

debate because I didn’t recognize you earlier.

The motion is moved by the Opposition House Leader, which was on

Votes and Proceedings , not on the order paper, just so

we’re clear.

Division has been called.

[11:30 a.m. - 11:35 a.m.]

Motion negatived on the following division:

YEAS — 27

Doerkson

Milobar

Stone

Bond

Halford

Ross

Oakes

Bernier

Paton

Davies

Furstenau

Olsen

Rustad

Banman

Kyllo

Shypitka

Sturko

Merrifield

Wat

Lee

Stewart

Clovechok

Ashton

Sturdy

Letnick

Tegart

Walker

NAYS — 46

Chandra Herbert

A. Singh

Babchuk

Coulter

Lore

Beare

Kang

Heyman

Osborne

Cullen

Bains

Malcolmson

Bailey

Mercier

Brar

Russell

Routledge

Starchuk

Rice

Yao

Leonard

R. Singh

Whiteside

Farnworth

Kahlon

Conroy

Sharma

Dix

Fleming

Dean

Rankin

Alexis

Sims

Paddon

Elmore

Glumac

Routley

D’Eith

Donnelly

Greene

Anderson

Chant

Sandhu

Dykeman

Begg

Chen

[11:40 a.m.]

Point of Order

Hon. R. Kahlon: I want to rise on a point of order. The member for Columbia

River–Revelstoke actually voted nay.

Interjections.

D. Clovechok: No, no. That member did not vote nay. He voted yea, which should have

been aye.

Good try, though.

The Speaker: They were heard as yea.

Thank you, Member. It’s okay.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I’ll call second reading on Bill 12, Public Health

Accountability and Cost Recovery Act.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 12 — PUBLIC HEALTH

ACCOUNTABILITY

AND COST

RECOVERY ACT

(continued)

T. Halford: I’m going to continue my remarks on Bill 12 here where I

concluded. I believe some of the stuff I was referencing yesterday were

just some of the overarching concerns.

We’re hearing consistently from communities, specifically the

business communities, on their concerns over Bill 12. I talked yesterday

about the broadness of the scope. I talked about the fact that when you

specifically look at clause 9, it grants a minister unprecedented power

to issue certificates establishing the cost of the health care

benefits.

I think one of the challenges that we see is that the businesses,

and British Columbians, for that matter, are not going to agree with

every piece of legislation that comes in. We understand that, but what

they do expect is some level of certainty when they get there. We know

that’s one of the issues, from the correspondence that we’re seeing

coming into our offices. I know that ministers, cabinet, the Premier and

MLAs on all sides are seeing the exact same thing. It’s concerned,

specifically, on the scope of Bill 12.

When we see issues of…. The fact is that they say, if enacted, the

law appears to apply to any product, goods, services or by-product,

which we understand can create any liability for almost any business

operating in or connected to B.C. That’s transformational.

[11:45 a.m.]

I think that probably only a fraction of businesses in B.C. know

that this is currently before the House getting debated. There are

potential impacts, which even we as opposition can’t educate them on,

because there are no proper

definitions in this legislation.

If a constituent that resides in my riding comes in and says,

“What will Bill 12 mean for me and my business?” even if this

legislation passes, based on what’s contained in it, I won’t have the

answers. Whether I agree on it or not won’t matter, because I challenge

anybody in this House to get up and define what this legislation

actually encompasses, and we know that some of the powers are to be

given to cabinet, like I said before, as being the judge and the

jury.

The question to government has got to be put: has proper

consultation been done on this piece of legislation? I think the

overwhelming response from some major, significant organizations is

they’re saying: “Absolutely not; it hasn’t.” They’ve got legitimate

concerns, and I think British Columbians in general would have

significant concerns.

The intentions of this bill can be wonderful, but if they’re not

properly defined in a way that people understand what the consequences

mean to them, to their employees and to their sector, that’s a dangerous

precedent and level of control that we are giving.

With that, I know that there are other speakers that would like to

speak after me, so I will take my seat. I thank the House for letting me

give my remarks.

N. Letnick: It’s indeed a privilege to stand any time in this House and

represent my constituents.

I’m going to speak to Bill 12, but while I have the attention of

the Minister of Health, just in case something takes him away later, I

just want to start with where I’m going to end with this: what a

different example of public consultation than what he and I and the

Leader of the Third Party did when we reviewed the Health Professions

Act, when we went out to the public and asked them for their input on a

series of recommendations.

Once we got the input, we went out to the public again and said,

“Well, here’s where we’re at; here’s what we’re thinking about,” and

got, again, some input. At that point, after two extensive public

consultations, over months — asking people, stakeholders that were going

to get involved in the implementation of the changes, plus the general

public — the government put together its legislation and did its

consultation in addition to that before it introduced Bill

Now, granted, Bill 36 wasn’t exactly the same as what we were

recommending. There were some changes to that — that’s the prerogative

of government — but the consultation was extensive. Now we have this

Bill 12, with no public consultation, no consultation with the

stakeholders, at least none that they’re saying they had, unless they

did and they had to sign non-disclosure agreements, but I’m not aware of

that.

I’m going to start with where I was going to end because I have

the attention of someone — a champion, I believe, of how things should

be done and how things should not be done. This is a perfect example of

how it should not be done. Having said that, I will repeat that again,

probably in about 27 minutes from now, in my time allotted of my 30

minutes.

Hon. Speaker, I rise today to address Bill 12, the Public Health

Accountability and Cost Recovery Act, 2024. On the surface, it promises

to safeguard public health and ensure that wrongdoers bear the cost of

their actions.

[11:50 a.m.]

I’ve read the legislation. I’ve looked at the public comments made

by members of the government. For example, the bill was introduced by

the Attorney General. She said: “This bill is intended to hold

wrongdoers accountable for their harmful conduct, including the

promotion, marketing and distribution of harmful products.”

On the surface, it would appear to be pretty clear, but then you

start going through the legislation. The legislation isn’t that long,

some 13 pages. But the key parts for me are actually at the front end of

the legislation.

If you look on page 2 of the legislation, in the

section on

definitions, and then page 3 of the legislation, health-related wrongs,

and clause 2…. Clause 2 actually identifies the purpose of the

legislation, where it says: “The government has a direct and distinct

action against a person to recover the cost of health care benefits

caused or contributed to by a health-related wrong.” Again, the

government has a direct and distinct action against a person to recover

the cost of health care benefits caused or contributed to by a

health-related wrong.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

What is a health-related wrong? Well, if you look at the

definitions again in clause 1: “‘health-related wrong’ means (

a) a

breach by a person of a common-law, equitable or statutory duty or

obligation owed to persons of British Columbia….” Again, it’s a breach

of a person’s common-law, equitable or statutory duty or obligation.

Then (b): “a tort that is committed in British Columbia by a person that

causes or contributes to” — and here it is — “disease, injury or

illness.”

So the legislation is saying in one piece that if you have an

action based on a health-related wrong…. The next piece is that

health-related wrong contributes to the disease, injury and illness of a

person, then you’re going to be in trouble.

Well, what is a disease, injury or illness? What disease, injury

or illnesses are they talking about in the legislation? That again is

defined in the first three pages. “‘Disease, injury or illness’ includes

the following: (

a) physical or mental injury or illness.” So it’s not

just physical but also mental injury. “(

b) problematic product use.”

Problematic. How far is problematic? Who defines that? “(

c) addiction,”

so I assume any addiction; “(

d) general deterioration of health; (

e) the

risk of disease, injury or illness.”

So disease, injury or illness is defined by the risk of disease,

injury or illness. There’s no limit, again, to what the legislation will

cover. That’s, I think, in large part why these people that believe they

will be impacted, these businesses and their representatives, are

writing the letters to the government at this point, asking for a pause

and asking for that consultation that should have happened prior to the

legislation being introduced to happen now.

Now, I have a lot more to say on this — specifically, 23 minutes —

but if you wouldn’t mind, Mr. Speaker, I will reserve my right to say it

later and adjourn debate.

N. Letnick moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 11:54 a.m.

Copyright © 2024 Legislative Assembly of British Columbia

The Official Report of Debates (Hansard) and webcasts of

chamber proceedings are available at www.leg.bc.ca .

For inquiries contact:

Hansard Services

612 Government Street

Victoria, BC V8V 1X4

Telephone: 250-387-3681

Email: hansardservices@leg.bc.ca

Published by Hansard Services under the authority

of the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia.