Hansard Blues

Legislative Assembly

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Wednesday, November

1, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

The House met at 1:35 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: H. Yao.

Introductions by Members

Hon. M. Farnworth: In the gallery today is a very special person. I first met her in 1988, when she came

out to the Tri-Cities, to our area, to be the campaign manager for Ian Waddell, who

was running for MP. She had been his constituency assistant.

We formed a great relationship, as I educated her on the Tri-Cities, on the suburbs,

and how they were different from Vancouver. I also got to appreciate her skills and

her strengths. She earned the nickname, which she still likes to, when she sends me

a card…. It was Boss Lady.

She is here in the gallery today, and she is celebrating a very special birthday.

It is her 80th birthday.

I would like the House to wish Sharon Olsen, a.k.a. Boss Lady, a very happy birthday.

C. Oakes: Joining us in the gallery today is Joshua Switzer, who is a third-year student at

the University of Victoria studying sociology and business. Would the House please

make him feel very welcome.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: To follow on the Public Safety Minister's introduction, the daughter of Sharon Olsen

is also in the House. Will my colleagues please make my former CA, both federally

and provincially, and now my EA in my minister's office, the fantastic Darcy Olsen,

feel very welcome.

H. Yao: I just want to take this moment to wish Angela Elliot the happiest 80th birthday.

I want to make sure we wish her all the health, prosperity, happiness and longevity

ahead. Please join me and wish her a happy birthday.

K. Greene: Today is bring your child to work day. I'm hoping that members in the gallery can

remember their temperate language and welcome my son William to the chamber today.

T. Stone: It gives me a great deal of pleasure to introduce my youngest daughter, Caitlin, who

is here with us today. In fact, today is go to work with your parents day for her

grade 9 class up at Valleyview Secondary. She is hiding.

I've had to appear to be busy today to make sure that she leaves with the correct

impression of how hard her dad actually works. Anyway, we've had a great day up to

this point. I'm really thrilled that she's here.

When I was elected, she was three years old. This is actually her first time in the

chamber to watch us in action and stuff. It's also her 14th birthday in one week today.

Happy birthday, Sweetie. Thank you so much for coming and spending the day with your

dad. It's very special.

R. Parmar: I don't think he's going to be watching from home, because he's too busy packing and

practising his German.

I wanted to take this opportunity, on behalf of, I think, all of us in this House,

to congratulate the former MLA for Langford–Juan de Fuca and the Premier of our province,

John Horgan, on his appointment as the next Ambassador of Canada to Germany.

Congratulations, John.

[1:40 p.m.]

Statements

4-H CLUB

I. Paton: I'm wearing my green 4-H tie today, because it's called Show Your Colours Day for 4-H kids. Of course, Ravi,

we were the cool kids in high school, us farm kids.

So 4-H is a great historical group that is mostly for farm kids. There's the famous

4-H pledge that we all took as we joined our local 4-H club. Whether you were dairy

cattle or beef cattle, there was 4-H for repairing engines and sewing and all sorts

of different things.

It goes like this: "I pledge my head to clearer thinking, my heart to greater loyalty,

my hands for greater service and my health for better living for my club and community."

Happy 4-H Day, everyone.

Introductions by Members

Hon. A. Kang: In the gallery today is my administrative assistant in the Ministry of Municipal Affairs,

Keziah Britto. Today is her last day that she will be working in my office, and she's

moving on to greater endeavours, showing her leadership. Not only has she been instrumental

in supporting Municipal Affairs, but she has also become a very dear friend.

Congratulations, Keziah.

Would the House please make her feel very welcome.

Introduction and

First Reading of Bills

BILL 43 — MONEY JUDGMENT ENFORCEMENT

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENT AND

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS ACT

Hon. N. Sharma presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendment and Transitional Provisions

Act.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I am pleased to introduce the Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendment and

Transitional Provisions Act, 2023.

This bill will amend legislation that will be impacted when Bill 27, the Money Judgment

Enforcement Act, which was enacted earlier this session, is brought into force.

This bill, Bill 43, also adds transitional provisions to the Court Order Enforcement

Act. The transitional provisions ensure that if a person wishes, writs or garnishing

orders a person has obtained under the Court Order Enforcement Act can continue to

be used to collect a judgment debt until the writ or garnishing order naturally expires

under the act.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is first reading of the bill.

Motion approved.

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be placed on the orders of the day for the second reading at

the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 43, Money Judgment Enforcement Consequential Amendment and Transitional Provisions

Act, 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.

BILL 44 — HOUSING STATUTES

(RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT)

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Hon. R. Kahlon presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill

intituled Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.

I'm pleased to introduce the Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment

Act. This bill will create more homes within reach for people by making it easier

to increase the supply of more attainable homes, like triplexes and townhomes, in

existing communities.

This bill allows, as a right, four units on larger lots, three units on smaller lots

in single detached zones as well as up to six units on areas in close proximity to

frequently used bus stops.

Second, it requires local government zoning bylaws to allow a minimum of one secondary

suite or detached accessory dwelling unit in a single detached zone across the province.

Third, it makes updates to improve local government housing needs reports to make

them more robust, consistent and comparable across communities.

Fourth, it will require municipalities to plan for and accommodate their housing needs

and their official community plans and zoning bylaws.

And lastly, it will require local governments to engage communities in development

of official community plans, and it eliminates public zoning hearings for projects

that are consistent with municipal communities' official plans.

These changes will help streamline the local government development approval process

and ensure that more homes can be built in the right places faster.

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

Motion approved.

Hon. R. Kahlon: 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 44, Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023, 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.

[1:45 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

DOMESTIC VIOLENCE AWARENESS MONTH

K. Chen: I want to begin my statement today by sharing a story about a four-year-old girl who

had brown hair, cute little glasses and a beautiful smile. She was a daughter, a big

sister and a schoolmate. She was smart and spunky, her mother said. She loved to dress

up as a princess. She was bright and sensitive, but she also needed therapy, because

she had an abusive father with a history of violence towards her mother, who is a

well-respected physician.

One weekend she had no choice but to follow a court order and stay with her father.

Sadly, she never made it home to her mother. She was found dead at the base of a cliff.

The little girl was Keira Kagan, who was murdered by her father in 2020.

Every year, November is Domestic Violence Awareness Month in Canada. But every day

there are still women, children, and men, too, who are living in unsafe situations,

who need our help right now. You may say, "Call 911," but very few domestic violence

reports result in a protection order. Even for sexual assaults, only about 10 percent

result in a conviction, and many without jail time.

We all know someone who has been impacted by domestic violence, even though there

are so many unreported incidents. Statistics also show that domestic violence has

increased significantly year after year, even since before the pandemic. It's an issue

that spans every culture, faith, education and income level. It not only impacts a

person's mental health and well-being. It can also create generational trauma and

affect our society as a whole if we don't take more actions now.

During this Domestic Violence Awareness Month, I encourage everyone to share the awareness

and advocate for better changes, and never, never stay silent if you know anyone who's

impacted. Apathy is our biggest enemy.

CONTRIBUTIONS OF FIREFIGHTERS AND

RETIREMENT OF FIRE CHIEF DAVE HRUBY

S. Bond: October 8 to 14 was Fire Prevention Week in Canada, giving us a chance to reflect

on the dedication and tireless efforts of professional and volunteer firefighters

in our communities and our province. As we continue to grapple with the devastating

impact that fires have and will continue to have on people and property, it is important

to thank all firefighters for their bravery and the expertise they bring to the difficult

and dangerous work that they do on our behalf.

Today I want to celebrate and express my gratitude to someone who has spent decades

serving with the McBride and district volunteer fire department. That is Chief Dave

Hruby. Chief Dave will be retiring at the end of November, and it is fitting that

he was honoured with a special surprise retirement party at the McBride fire hall

on October 29.

From all reports, it was a surprise. The fire hall was full of family, friends and

colleagues from McBride and other out-of-town fire departments. Of course, there were

amazing treats, stories shared and heartfelt thank-yous.

Dave has had an exemplary career of public service. He was awarded one of Canada's

highest honours, the federal Fire Services Exemplary Service bar, for his work as

a fire chief in McBride. Chief Dave served for 43 years. Under his leadership and

careful budgeting, McBride has added several fire service units and increased the

focus on training and preparedness.

It's been an honour to get to know Dave and his wife, Rosemary.

Chief Dave, thank you for your dedicated service. As you begin this next

chapter of

your life, please know how grateful we are for your tireless efforts. We wish you,

Rosemary and your entire family many years of good health and much happiness.

Thank you, Chief Dave, for a job very well done.

CANADIAN PACIFIC HOLIDAY TRAIN AND

FOOD BANK FUNDRAISER

R. Glumac: It'll start its journey all the way over in Hermon, Maine, on November 21. It's the

CP Holiday Train, and from there, it's going to make its way across Canada, making

over 190 stops. Twenty of those are in British Columbia in communities like Nelson,

Revelstoke, Salmon Arm, Kamloops and even Maple Ridge before arriving in Port Moody.

Along the way, it collects donations and food items for local food banks. In fact,

since the holiday train began in 1999, it's collected over $22½ million and over five

million pounds of food. All these donations that are raised in a community where the

train stops remain in that community.

[1:50 p.m.]

This year the Holiday Train will arrive in Port Moody, behind the rec centre, at 5:20

p.m. on December 18. It's an exciting experience to watch that train pull in, lit

up and flashing Christmas lights, and the stage door opening up, revealing an amazing

band ready to give a free concert to everyone watching.

There are different bands every year and different bands along different legs of the

journey. This year in Port Moody, it'll be Juno Award–nominated artist Tyler Shaw

and Juno Award–winning artist Kiesza from the Kootenays.

After the performance, you can warm up near a giant bonfire monitored by the local

firefighters or check out other activities, including cookie decorating, face painting

and maybe even a chance to visit Santa.

I'll see you there — the CP Holiday Train on December 18.

CRIME PREVENTION

M. Morris: Crime Prevention Week takes place in British Columbia from today through to November

Despite best efforts by businesses and police, crime in our communities has become

pervasive. Shoplifting, vandalism, violence and public disorder are driving businesses

to consider closing or relocating from traditional retail locations. Crimes are committed

with little to no regard for the presence of traditional crime prevention tools like

video surveillance and increased visible security staff. Crimes are committed with

little to no regard for consequences, because fundamentally, there are none.

The Save Our Streets coalition of businesses and concerned citizens is testament to

the extreme frustration businesses face, feeling powerless to stop this disgraceful

blight facing our communities. The traditional crime prevention tactics used by police,

citizens and businesses are ineffective, as our society faces an era of prescribed

immunity, an era that appears to excuse or ignore crimes committed by individuals

who suffer from addictions, mental health challenges or other causal factors.

This era did not arrive overnight but has taken years to manifest in our communities.

Over the years, police have become the default to address dysfunctional social disorder,

channelling individuals into a justice system that is ill-equipped to address addictions

and mental illness. Police agencies across our province are overwhelmed and powerless

to address these crimes. So too are our courts, which recognize that mental illness

and addictions cannot be processed through a justice system.

We need a crime prevention strategy that focuses aggressively on treatment and recovery

for persons suffering from addictions. One that focuses on compassionate, readily

available mental health treatment facilities across the province. One that will significantly

reduce the incidence of shoplifting, vandalism, violence and public disorder. One

where police will be able to focus on criminals and traditional crime prevention initiatives.

One where the administration of justice can focus on prosecuting criminals who have

fostered this disorder through trafficking in drugs and organized criminal behaviour.

Most importantly, suffering British Columbians will get the help they need to survive,

ensuring that they thrive in life rather than contributing to the chaos that we see

today on our streets.

4-H CLUB

M. Dykeman: It is a privilege to rise in the House today on Show Your 4-H Colours Day. It is an

extra special celebration today, as it is the 110th anniversary of 4-H in Canada.

Members, leaders and supporters from coast to coast are proudly showing their colours

by wearing green, to celebrate the values and achievements of 4-H in Canada.

4-H has been making a difference since 1913. A youth organization for youth aged six

to 21 years, it focuses on building leadership and life skills that equip youth with

the tools they need to reach their full potential and be conscientious, contributing

citizens. 4-H's focus on leadership, communication skills and fostering deep community

roots is seen in their impressive list of 4-H alumni, which includes community leaders,

advocates, Olympians, CEOs and parliamentarians.

One of the largest youth organizations, whose roots started in Roland, Manitoba, it

has grown over the years, now supporting youth in communities in over 70 countries.

With strong agricultural roots, 4-H also has a growing urban membership. There really

is something for everyone.

[1:55 p.m.]

Whether they choose a more traditional 4-H project, like poultry or dairy, or something

like dogs and crafts, the skills, values, friendships and experiences they develop,

through learning to do by doing, carry them through their lives.

Tonight the Legislature fountains will be lit up green — thanks to you, hon. Speaker

— in celebration of 4-H, whose members pledge their head to clear thinking, their

heart to greater loyalty, their hands to larger service and their health for better

living for their club, their community, their country and the world.

Could the House please join me in congratulating 4-H on 110 years of making a difference.

MOVEMBER FUNDRAISING CAMPAIGN

G. Kyllo: Looking around the House today, I see many members that have freshly shaved faces,

marking the beginning of another Movember campaign. We'll have to wait till next week

to see who is bold enough to actually start growing a mo.

Now, Movember is not just about rocking a new moustache. It's an opportunity to shine

a light on men's health issues, particularly three of the most pressing concerns:

prostate cancer, testicular cancer and mental health and suicide prevention. We simply

cannot afford to stay silent on these issues. Fathers, brothers, uncles and friends

are facing significant health challenges that are rarely talked about.

On average, men are dying 4½ years earlier than women, largely due to preventable

reasons. Around 10.8 million men globally are facing life with a prostate cancer diagnosis,

and that number continues to grow. Testicular cancer is the most common cancer among

young men. Shockingly, one man dies by suicide every minute, accounting for 69 percent

of suicides. In Canada, men are three times more likely to die by suicide than women.

In addition to that, men also represent 80 percent of the opioid deaths in our province.

The urgency to step up, raise awareness and support men's health has never been greater.

I'm proud to say that I've been part of the Movember campaign for over 15 years. Thanks

to the help of my colleagues and staff, our B.C. United team has raised a total of

more than $100,000 towards the Movember campaign.

There are more ways to engage in and show support for Movember beyond growing a moustache,

and I encourage everyone to find a way to participate in this year's campaign. It's

not just about growing facial hair. It's about raising awareness and funds to tackle

these critical issues.

Together we can make a difference, support men's health and work to ensure that no

one suffers in silence.

B. Anderson: May I seek leave to make an introduction?

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

B. Anderson: Today I would like to wish someone very special a happy birthday. It is the member

for Powell River–Sunshine Coast, with his sunny personality. It's his birthday. He

has been an incredible mentor and a friend.

I just need to give him the embarrassment of a birthday wish from all of his colleagues

in the Legislature.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT POLICY ON CARBON TAX

AND SPENDING PRIORITIES

E. Ross: Yesterday the Premier sneered at the Premier of Saskatchewan for demanding relief

from the crippling carbon tax on home heating.

Well, guess what? Manitoba's NDP Premier is also demanding fairness, and he is even

suspending their provincial gas tax. That's right, an NDP Premier.

Even Rachel Notley is getting on board, calling for tax relief.

But not this NDP Premier here in B.C. The NDP refuse to fight for B.C., and the Premier

won't lift a finger to give people carbon tax relief on home heating costs.

My question is to the Premier. Why is the Premier tripling his carbon tax instead

of giving families a break?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Thanks to the member for the question.

We canvassed this at great length yesterday as well, and the Minister of Energy, Mines

and Low Carbon Innovation highlighted the fact that we believe it's not fair what

the federal government did. We don't understand how the federal government made the

decision that they did, without any notice, in the manner that they did. We have been

advocating to them that it should be a policy that happens across the country.

[2:00 p.m.]

The member's assertion that we haven't been raising this issue with the federal government

is false. We have been. It's been raised in this House. The Premier addressed this

issue in this House.

It's vitally important that any policy that the federal government brings in place

should be consulted with all the provinces, but it should be done in a fair, balanced

way so that all British Columbians can benefit from any changes that happen.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, supplemental.

E. Ross: The ability of this B.C. government is here and now in terms of what this government

can do to help the people of British Columbia. In fact, this NDP government has already

done it. They've exercised their jurisdiction and authority in giving LNG Canada and

other big corporations in B.C. a break on the carbon tax. They capped it at 30 bucks

a ton.

Corporate handouts are easy for the Premier, but he claims that relief for everyday

people would break the budget unless he can jack it up to $170 a tonne. If the Premier

needs help finding savings, how about scrapping his half-billion-dollar corporate

giveaway to InBC Investment Corp., a high-risk venture capital scheme.

Will the Premier end his huge corporate handouts and give families relief from his

crushing carbon tax hikes?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, thanks to the member for the question.

So $500 million to ensure that we see investments flowing through this province in

companies in every corner of this province is a significant step we've taken. We're

proud of that investment.

Now if the member thinks that this idea of ensuring that investments flow into some

of our rising tech companies is a challenge, he should talk to the members on this

side of his chamber who were around when they introduced the Immigration Investment

Fund, which also invested in tech companies throughout British Columbia.

This is an important initiative to ensure that the companies that are going to help

us solve the climate change issues that we're dealing with every day in our communities

are being invested in. That solution is being developed here in British Columbia,

not only helping us solve the challenges we're dealing with, but also creating good-paying

jobs in every corner of this province. We're proud of that, and we're going to continue

to do that investment.

Mr. Speaker: Member for Skeena, second supplemental.

E. Ross: These announcements on amazing investments do not help the people of British Columbia

who are suffering under an affordability crisis. People have to decide between heating

their homes, purchasing medicine or buying groceries. The virtue-signalling just doesn't

work anymore.

In terms of the previous questions from today — and yesterday, by the way — and everything

that we've talked about for the past year, I take that as a no. This government is

not going to help everyday British Columbians.

The Premier is sticking to his half-a-billion-dollar corporate giveaway, all while

jacking up the carbon tax on regular people who need help. While big corporations

are exempt, this Premier is hiking the carbon tax rate at the pump from under seven

cents to over 37 cents.

Unlike Wab Kinew or Rachel Notley, this NDP Premier offers a half-billion-dollar corporate

handout over helping working people who have to choose between heating their home

or putting food on the table.

Why doesn't the Premier end his outrageous corporate giveaways and give hard-working

people a break?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I cannot believe what I'm hearing from the opposition today. I cannot believe that

I'm hearing from them, talking about handouts to corporations. We saw for 16 years

in government where they gave the tax cuts to the wealthiest people in this province

while jacking up MSP rates and adding tolls…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. R. Kahlon: …adding costs on the people in British Columbia.

Hon. Speaker, they talk in this House as if they just showed up. They talk as if in

this House….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Members, calm down.

Member for Abbotsford West, please.

Minister will continue.

Hon. R. Kahlon: They talk as if they just arrived, and they've forgotten that their history exists.

I know they changed their name because they don't want people to remember their history.

They're hoping the new name will somehow help people forget the years of adding costs

onto middle-income families while giving the wealthiest people in this province a

tax cut.

[2:05 p.m.]

We're taking a different approach. We're going to continue to help people by lowering

hydro bills, lowering childcare fees, continuing to support people, because we know

people need that support.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

Members, when the question is asked and the answer is provided, let's listen to both

sides, please.

S. Bond: What this minister fails to mention is that they've managed to accomplish something.

It's called being the least-affordable province in the entire country. That's on this

minister's watch.

He also fails to mention that when the half-billion-dollar investment was made, the

CEO's salary exceeds $300,000. It's okay, I guess, to make sure that executives are

well paid, but that is insulting for families who can't afford their heating bills

thanks to this Premier's relentless carbon tax hikes.

After seven years, B.C. is now the most unaffordable province in this country.

Why doesn't the Premier scrap his wasteful half-a-billion-dollar corporate giveaway

and do the right thing — offer families in British Columbia some relief from their

crushing carbon tax?

Hon. K. Conroy: I know that the members opposite are struggling to get some relativity, so I understand

why they want to talk about affordability, which is very much in our wheelhouse. But

I want to make sure people understand what the opposition….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. K. Conroy: The plan that they're using, that they're talking about, with the carbon tax is just

the wrong approach. I mean, we can just look to Alberta and see that the opposition

leader's approach would actually subsidize oil companies instead of helping people.

Jason Kenney — I think everybody remembers Jason Kenney. He introduced….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. K. Conroy: He introduced a similar cut. Within ten days of Kenney introducing that cut, he had

to admit that oil companies had hiked prices and wiped out any savings for ordinary

Albertans — any savings.

The opposition leader's approach won't help people with gas prices. It will, in fact….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: In fact, the opposition's plan would actually cost the people of British Columbia

$5 billion, so where are they going to get the money for that? What are they going

to cut?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, this is question period.

S. Bond: I can't begin to describe how out of touch and how ill-informed that answer was from

the Minister of Finance.

Today under her watch, British Columbians are making choices about whether or not

they can fill their gas tank, whether they can heat their homes, and we get that kind

of an answer from the Finance Minister. It is no wonder that we are living in the

most unaffordable jurisdiction in the country, bar none.

Let's be clear. The people who are leading in Canada are standing up today and calling

for relief to the Finance Minister on home heating. Everyone, including the NDP Premier

of Manitoba, is taking this issue seriously, and by that Finance Minister's answer,

apparently she and the Premier are not.

Will she get up, do the right thing today and finally listen to British Columbians

who are asking for relief from the crushing carbon tax? Let's see if the Finance Minister

can answer that with a yes or no.

Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for her question, but here's some reality for the member opposite.

I mean, let's talk about what the Leader of the Opposition said about cutting carbon

tax, which is exactly what they're asking us to do — cut the carbon tax. Let me quote

their leader….

Interjections.

[2:10 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Members. Okay, Members, let's hear the answer. Let's hear the answer, Members, now.

Hon. K. Conroy: Oh, there are so many quotes I could give.

Anyway, the opposition's leader said it would be a terrible mistake that will cost

people more. I mean, I think he'll just say anything to get elected. The opposition

leader's….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Actually, the opposition leader's plan, it doesn't help people with gas prices. It

subsidizes big oil, which they were just complaining about. It subsidizes big oil,

and it'll cost more….

Interjections.

Hon. K. Conroy: Oh my goodness. I just don't want to yell that loud.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Opposition Members, you are wasting your own time.

The minister will continue.

Hon. K. Conroy: What they're proposing, Mr. Speaker, will actually cost people more, and it'll actually

cut services, services that people depend on in this province, which is what they

did when they were first elected in 2001, but they seem to forget that.

What we should ask them is: what services are they going to cut? Are they going to

cut hospital? Are they going to cut services to education? There are so many things

that we need to have answers from them. What are they going to cut?

SUBSIDIES TO LNG INDUSTRY

S. Furstenau: Wow. I will say: do you know who is not suffering from an affordability crisis right

now? Multinational oil and gas companies that are raking in record-breaking profits,

companies that this government is supporting with subsidies.

While British Columbians pay $65 a tonne for carbon tax, LNG Canada pays only $30

a tonne. This government is giving LNG Canada a sweetheart deal of subsidies to the

tune of $62 million a year. Strike 1.

The International Energy Agency just announced that demand for all three fossil fuels

— coal, oil and gas — will peak in 2030 and then start to decline, a glaring reminder

that LNG is bad for the climate and for the economy. Strike 2.

New analysis from one of the world's premier methane scientists finds that LNG is

worse for the climate than coal, contrary to the province's position that LNG will

help displace coal in China and lower global emissions. Strike 3. Turns out, LNG is

not good for the climate, not good for British Columbians' pockets and not good for

the long-term economic security of this province.

My question is to the Premier. Will the Premier reverse the decision to give massive

subsidies to Shell, Petronas, PetroChina, Mitsubishi Corp. and KOGAS?

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

As people at home can see, we hear one day from one side: too much. We hear from the

other side: not enough. What we try to do as a government is to ensure that we balance

the needs of British Columbians, make sure that we can continue to have investments

flow to British Columbia and, at the same time, be a leader in protecting our environment.

We are lauded as leaders in North America for the action we're taking on climate change.

I give credit to the member across the way for being part of the strategy that we

brought in place to make sure that happens. We're going to continue to do that work,

but while we're doing that work, we're going to continue to support families.

Recently the federal government has made a decision. Again, we've said many times

in this House that we believe the decision was not thought out. We believe that they

need to reconsider their decision.

The Premier said it, the minister responsible for Energy, Mines and Low Carbon Innovation

has said it, and we continue to say that we want Canada to come to the table and engage

us on a conversation about how we move forward.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Third Party, supplemental.

S. Furstenau: I guess that was a no, hon. Speaker.

There were 14 standing votes in which the B.C. Greens, by the way, disagreed with

the giant subsidy that went to LNG Canada, so do not suggest that we agreed with them

on anything like that.

This government claims to care about climate and affordability, but they have created

this atrocious deal with the oil and gas industry. While British Columbians are struggling

to pay their hydro bills, the LNG sector gets discounted rates on electricity to the

tune of $90 million to $106 million per year.

[2:15 p.m.]

While farmers on Vancouver Island are told not to water their crops due to drought,

the fracking industry pays pennies, $2.25 per million litres of water, to contaminate

millions of litres of precious fresh water in this province.

My question is to the Premier. When is this government going to acknowledge that we

are in a climate industry and take the steps necessary to move this province away

from subsidizing the oil and gas industry?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Again, I appreciate the member's question, but the assertion that we're not leaders

when it comes to taking on climate change in North America is just false. The member

knows that.

Yes, we want to continue to do better. Yes, we have to do more work to ensure that

we both protect our environment and we keep people in our communities moving forward

with good-paying jobs. That's important to every member of this House.

That's the work we've been doing together. The strategy that we laid out is work that

the Minister of Environment is leading. All of the ministers in this government work

every single day to advance. The assertion that the member makes — that, for some

reason, the government doesn't take this seriously — is just false.

BUDGET PRIORITIES AND

ELECTRIC VEHICLE INFRASTRUCTURE

B. Banman: This NDP Premier seems to be more focused on virtue-signalling progressive wokeness

to the world than he is with helping working-class British Columbians right here at

home. Why else would this government introduce legislation to make B.C. the first

place in the world where it's more difficult for the average family to have a normal

gasoline-powered vehicle to get to work, school, the grocery store or the kids to

the hockey game?

According to the Vancouver Sun , the average price of an electric vehicle in Canada is $73,000. After taxes, that

is…. More than half of all B.C. families take home less than that.

For everyday working British Columbians, this expensive NDP plan makes zero sense.

Families are struggling to pay for food and rent. They can't afford to buy fancy new

EVs.

Question to this privileged NDP Premier: why is this NDP government asking hard-working

everyday British Columbia families to subsidize charging stations and brand-new EVs

for those who were already wealthy enough to afford them?

Hon. R. Kahlon: I thank the member for the question. We discussed this yesterday in this House.

I appreciate the member finally acknowledging that climate change is real. It's a

very important step for the B.C. Conservative Party, a big policy announcement that

they made. What they haven't yet said is: do they believe it's human-caused? The member

refuses to answer that question.

We believe that we need to take strong climate action. Ensuring that we have a shift

from fossil fuels, moving to electric cars, is one of the ways we can achieve that.

B.C. is a leader. I heard members in this House saying: "How dare B.C. step out ahead

and be a leader with California?" That's what people in our communities want. They

want us to make sure that we're continuing to address climate change and doing it

in a way that moves British Columbia forward when it comes to economic measures as

well.

To the member across the way, does he believe that climate change is man-caused? If

so, this is his opportunity to say it.

Mr. Speaker: The Chair also would like to remind the member that the bill is already in front of

the House. Those questions can also be asked at canvass there, if the member would

like.

B. Banman: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I would remind government that this is a time for

opposition to ask questions, not the other way around.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Members.

B. Banman: Working poverty is real in British Columbia. That's the legacy of the NDP Premier

and his failing government. In fact, one of my own staff told me that their mother,

who lives in B.C., works a full-time job and is now forced to live in her car because

rent in the Lower Mainland is so much more than what a working person earns — so much

more. She is not alone.

This privileged Premier and his NDP party are detached from reality; so are their

priorities. The only party in this House that isn't afraid to stand up for working-class

British Columbians is the Conservative Party of B.C.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Let's hear the question, please.

B. Banman: I know my former party follows everything we do, so we know we're on the right track.

Interjections.

[2:20 p.m.]

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Let's listen to the question.

B. Banman: Working-class British Columbians are being forced to spend their hard-earned tax dollars

on brand-new charging stations, special infrastructure to make life easier and cheaper

for the richest British Columbians who can afford to buy EVs.

Mr. Speaker: Question, Member.

B. Banman: This Premier is like a reverse Robin Hood. He wants to snatch tax money from the working

poor and use it to subsidize electric vehicles for the comfortably rich.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Member.

B. Banman: My question is to the Premier. Why would the tax money taken from those who can't

afford a roof over their heads be used to pay for his overpriced plan to put a new

EV in every single millionaire's driveway in British Columbia?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Today is a bizarre day for those watching, where it feels like it's an audition about

who cares about working people more.

When that member was on this side, very little was done to protect working families

throughout British Columbia. He was on this side with the B.C. United party when they

increased taxes on working families, increasing MSP, increasing costs on everyday

people with tolls, etc., and at the same time, giving cuts to the most wealthiest

people in British Columbia.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Shhh. Shhh. Let's….

Members, shhh. Members, enough.

Minister.

Hon. R. Kahlon: We know that there are people struggling with global inflation. We know that there

are real challenges being faced in communities throughout British Columbia. That's

why we're taking the actions we're taking, giving more money back to families, lowering

child care fees.

All these initiatives that we're doing in government are to help address that. We

know that more is needed to be done. We're going to continue to do that work.

LASQUETI ISLAND FERRY SERVICE

A. Walker: This is not how question period is supposed to go.

People in ferry-dependent communities rely on B.C. Ferries as an integral part of

our highway system, whether it's for medical appointments, for work or to see loved

ones. People have seen the reliability of that service go down. It's impacting small

communities, rural communities like that on Lasqueti Island.

This government's failed commitments go beyond just having the ferry system be reliable.

Four years ago, when government entered into a contract with Western Pacific Marine,

they agreed to consult with the people of Lasqueti Island once a year to ensure that

the ferry service was working for them.

Now that we are in the process of re-entering that contract negotiation, to the Minister

of Transportation and Infrastructure, can he commit to bring a representative from

the Ministry of Transportation and from B.C. Ferries to the island before the contract

negotiations continue so that the voices of the people of the island can be heard?

Hon. R. Fleming: Thank you to the member for the question.

The key priorities for B.C. Ferries right now are around improving reliability of

the service. They have suffered from labour shortages. They have suffered from a difficult

recovery from the pandemic in terms of human resources. They are working on that in

earnest. I outlined some of the elements in this House a week or so ago, about how

that is demonstrated in terms of the hiring and recruitment they are doing — which

is in fact an international strategy.

The unregulated route, which the member speaks of, that services Lasqueti Island has

also had similar impacts around sailings. We are using the occasion of a new performance

term contract coming up, which we will sign and put in force no later than April 1

of 2024, as an occasion to strengthen the contract language around reliability for

Lasqueti.

We are in discussions with islanders in that community and others. We are working

with contracted providers who service the unregulated routes that serve small island

communities and Indigenous communities up and down our coast, to make improvements

and to use the next four-year contract to be able to deliver better for people on

Lasqueti and everywhere else on the coast that's served by B.C. Ferries.

Mr. Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Walker: I appreciate the response, but it didn't really answer the question. There was a commitment

made four years ago that once a year, just once a year, there would be representatives

that go to the island to hear firsthand. We've seen some significant challenges lately.

It's not just staffing; it's not just mechanical.

[2:25 p.m.]

We've all seen the photos of the boat with the Nerf football plugging the hole. We've

all heard in our community about the challenges between staff and individuals on the

island that have led to the RCMP getting involved. The community was promised that

a representative from MOTI and from B.C. Ferries would come once a year to listen

to islanders.

The question again: can the minister commit to ensure that somebody goes and visits

the island to ensure that the voices of this island can be heard and that their input

can be brought as a part of this negotiation?

Hon. R. Fleming: Specifically to what the member references, we are aware that there were some flare-ups

that involved, in the end, policing authorities, that happened on Lasqueti Island

this summer. We are also aware that there are some contract performance shortcomings

on that unregulated route. We are working to fix that.

I would be surprised if B.C. Ferries has not visited the island to date. I will check,

on behalf of the member, to see if somebody from B.C. Ferry Services or the Ferry

Authority or whether the ferry advisory committee has also reached out to Lasqueti.

We know their views. We have a good idea of the service improvements that they desire.

We're certainly negotiating that in the contract with B.C. Ferries as the company

who provides the service and is funded to provide the service through our ministry.

If those concerns have not been specifically addressed by a company representative,

I will endeavour to find out and report back to the member.

GOVERNMENT FUNDING TO

DRUG USER ORGANIZATIONS

E. Sturko: The arrests at the Drug Users Liberation Front shed light on what's been a year and

a half of taxpayer-funded drug trafficking.

DULF didn't just actively buy illicit drugs off the dark web. They supplied those

illicit drugs through the mail to as many as 15 drug advocate programs. At least ten

of these groups that received the illicit drugs also receive public funding.

At a presentation hosted by the National Safer Supply Community of Practice, the director

of research for the B.C. Centre on Substance Use candidly confessed his role in the

taxpayer-funded drug trafficking at DULF. This key government adviser steering government

drug policies is part of taxpayer-funded drug trafficking, a network created by this

government.

Will the Premier undertake a full forensic audit, cancel the public funding for organizations

involved in criminal activity and fire this compromised director of research?

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

As has been discussed in this House, on this particular issue, there have been 14,000

deaths due to the toxic drug crisis in our province. This government has been doing

everything it can to ensure that we are putting in place all the programs and supports

needed to eliminate the toxic drug crisis and the deaths that are occurring to it.

Part of that has been working with partners to ensure the provision of services, to

ensure, in the case of what the member is talking about, that they have the equipment

to do testing, which is a contract that they had in place. The ministry and the minister

became aware that that contract was not being followed, and it was immediately terminated.

As I told this House, it was the expectation that everybody follow the law. The member

knows, and I will say this, that I do not direct investigations. If she has evidence,

then she should take that to the police.

I'll also say this. That member did not sit on this side of the House when her colleagues,

the last time they were government…. I suggest she talk to some of them about what

happened the last time they made allegations against health researchers.

[End of question period.]

Petitions

E. Ross: I stand in the House today to present a petition with 188 signatures, on behalf of

my constituents in Thornhill, asking to have a road sign stating that you have entered

Thornhill.

Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: Due to the legislative session being cancelled tomorrow to allow members to attend

the First Nations leadership gathering, I move that when the House next adjourn, it

stand adjourned until 10 a.m. on Monday, November 6, 2023.

Motion approved.

[2:30 p.m.]

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call third reading of Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Act.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 33 — PENSION BENEFITS STANDARDS

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 33, Pension Benefits Standards Amendment Act, 2023, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call third reading of Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No.

2).

BILL 28 — MOTOR VEHICLE

AMENDMENT ACT (N O . 2), 2023

Bill 28, Motor Vehicle Amendment Act (No. 2), 2023, read a third time and passed.

Hon. L. Beare: In this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance

Amendment Act.

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

Disaster Management Act.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 37 — CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 37; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 2:36 p.m.

On clause 1.

The Chair: All right, Members. We'll get the committee stage going for Bill 37, Crime Victim

Assistance Amendment Act, 2023.

Did the minister want to make any introductions? No.

K. Kirkpatrick: Clause 1 is dealing with expansion of and redefining some

definitions. "Parent," "child"

and "spouse" are now their own separate

definitions, as opposed to being part of an

immediate family. "Immediate family member" is being expanded, which is a good step

forward, given the increase in crime over the last seven years and the corresponding

increase in victims.

Can the minister provide a current timeline for CVAP applications to work their way

through the branch, from application to decision?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I really hope we can avoid the cheap shots in the questions. That would, I think,

make things go a lot smoother.

In terms of the applications, a number of applications will receive a decision within

one to two weeks, while others may take longer. It may well relate to the nature of

the claim or the complexity of a particular claim or the kinds of benefits that a

claimant is wanting to seek.

Some may require medical information, for example, which obviously has privacy issues

and things like that that need to be dealt with. But it is hoped that applicants may

start to receive it within one to two weeks of an application.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

What's the current volume of applications the CVAP branch had in 2022 and now in 2023?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We received approximately 4,700 applications in fiscal year '22-23.

A. Olsen: Just a question with respect to…. I appreciate that the minister provided a response

back to me with respect to some questions that I had and raised with his ministry

with respect to this bill. I'm not sure where to fit these questions in, so I'm going

to ask them here. Maybe the minister can redirect me to another clause that's in the

bill, if that suits the conversation and the discussion here better.

Just questions around the support for families and family counselling. The minister's

response to me suggested that children and the families do get access to counselling.

But there are some nuances to that. Maybe the minister could provide some context

and clearly respond to the type of counselling that's available for children and their

families if the children are victims of crime.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Victims are generally eligible for up to

48 counselling sessions to support recovery from psychological injuries resulting

from an offence. Where a victim is a minor, there is no maximum cap that has been

placed on sessions that they're able to receive.

Immediate family members of minors, victims, are eligible for up to 36 counselling

sessions to support their own recovery from the impact of the offence. Families can

also benefit from psychoeducational counselling, up to four sessions per support person,

which can include any family member and other support persons, to better understand

the impact of the offence on the victim and how to support their recovery.

A. Olsen: If they are a couple and they would like to receive counselling as a way to better

support their child through the traumatic time, are couples able to receive counselling

together in order to get that support?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes. Those are the four sessions that I was talking about in the last

section of the

comments.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Can the minister describe what the process is in order for parents

to be able to access that service?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If there's an accepted claim from a victim, there would be automatic approval for

a family member or a support person.

A. Olsen: The reason why I'm asking these questions is because we've been advised that there's

actually quite an arduous process that has been experienced, I'd say, by some folks

who are trying to access this. There have been, for example, some questions put back

to people trying to seek the funds to be able to get the support they need and, as

well, some administrative costs that are not paid for if the counsellor is involved.

Is this something that the minister is aware that people are experiencing?

Hon. M. Farnworth: That's one of the reasons why we're bringing forward this legislation — to be able

to expand. In other words, more people are eligible and, at the same time, within

the ministry, always looking at ways to improve response times.

I think one of the challenges sometimes is that you get applications coming in, and

then they're not eligible. So people end up having…. That, in itself, creates challenges

in terms of processing applications. What this legislation is doing is expanding that

and the class and the groups of people that are eligible to be able to get the services.

I think that is going to help make the system more efficient and serve a broader segment

of the population.

[2:45 p.m.]

A. Olsen: These are already approved counselling sessions, though. As is described in the letter,

this doesn't require the minister to expand who can receive these services. These

are services that are already available, yet there's quite an arduous bureaucratic

and administrative process, including requests for folks to demonstrate that they're

actually seeking counselling about the well-being of their child and support for their

child.

I'm wondering how the expansion of services…. We're seeing a situation where the current

services are not being delivered as they are…. I guess it's a separate question from

the one of expanding the services, although I guess it would relate in that even if

these are expanded, people are experiencing a rather heavy bureaucratic process.

Is this something that the minister is familiar with happening for parents who are

trying to seek support for their children?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and it isn't…. As the member I'm sure will

appreciate, it's a bit difficult to comment on a specific case in this kind of format.

But in general — and I think the member alluded to it in his letter to me, to which

I responded — I know that there have been some issues in terms of claimants and around

how the cost is paid and whether they have to pay the cost themselves and then be

reimbursed.

The reality is that once a claim has been accepted, we are able to reimburse that

cost directly or make that payment directly to the counsellor so the individual does

not have to make that payment themselves.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Just for clarification, then, when it comes to the reimbursement

piece, there have been experiences where individuals have had to prove that they are

receiving counselling services to support their child specifically. I guess to ensure

that it's not about some other issue.

In order to have that happen, they had to engage a professional, their counsellor,

to then write a letter and to provide that information. In this instance, their administrative

costs are not being covered.

With this new bill, will we see a situation where the administrative costs for that

process and having to engage the counsellor in the process to write a letter…? Will

those costs also be able to be recovered by the individuals?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, we can pay for an intake report. We could pay for something like that.

A. Olsen: Shifting gears. I really appreciate this. Thank you, Minister.

With respect to eligibility for income support — again, if this needs to be in a different

section, please let me know, but I don't see a clear

section for this — for families

whose child is a victim of a serious crime, if an adult misses work or loses income

as a result of being a victim or a survivor of crime, some of those costs and some

of that income can be reimbursed or they can receive some compensation for that lost

income.

[2:50 p.m.]

However, in British Columbia, if it's a child who is the victim or survivor of a crime

and their parents are required to take time off work or lose income in the support

of their child, they are not able to receive compensation. Is the minister addressing

this short-sighted policy in this bill, and if not, why not?

R. Leonard: I seek leave to make an introduction.

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Leonard: I'd like to introduce to the House Ms. Joy Tansky's grade 10 class. There are 14 folks

that have come into the gallery today along with, I understand, three chaperones.

I'm hoping that the House will make them feel welcome.

I also want to make note that their teacher, Ms. Tansky, has been very consistent

in bringing a number of her students to this House. It's a real tribute to teachers

like her who take the time to introduce their students to our democratic process to

demystify this place and the work that we do here.

They are 16 years old or thereabouts, and they will soon be preregistered to vote,

and they also have the potential to be sitting in this House. We have the youngest

member of the Legislature, recently elected, who is only a decade older than they

will be when they get to vote in a couple of years' time.

Would the House please make them feel very welcome.

Debate Continued

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member is correct. There is no sort of wage replacement for the parents of the

minor. There are a lot of services and supports that are available to the minor, but

not in what the member is referring to as wage loss. In fact, nowhere in the country

is that the case. What this legislation will do, though, is it will make our program

the strongest in the country by significantly expanding the supports that are available.

That's what we were able to do at this time.

I want to let the member know the kind of supports that are available for a minor

and that families are eligible for that in the support of the recovery of the minor

victim. Unlimited counselling in recognition of the significant impact that the violent

crime can have on the child and young people. Medical and rehabilitation expenses,

personal care services, disability aids, transportation expenses where travel is necessary

to access benefits, as well as home modification and, in some cases, relocation expenses.

A. Olsen: Are those services that he just identified available to adults as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is yes.

A. Olsen: I recognize that this would make us an outlier in a good way, I would suggest, in

this country. However, the province recognizes that if somebody loses a salary as

a result of being a victim or a survivor of a crime, it's reasonable to provide them

some compensation as they recover from that incident.

Now, in the case of a child who doesn't have a job — and is not allowed to have a

job up until a certain age in this province — they're supported, necessarily, by parents

who may, as a result of that crime that nobody wishes upon them…. They're going to

lose wages.

[2:55 p.m.]

In some cases, we've seen that be the case. It's in order to entirely support their

child with the medical needs that they have. It's to support the child for their psychological

needs that they have. It's helping kids reintegrate back into society. Sometimes parents

need to take time away from their work in order to be able to do that.

What we have here is…. We have an inequity in our province. If you're an adult, you

can get that money back or be compensated for those lost wages. But if you're a child

and you have parents who are supporting you, they can't receive the same benefit.

Why wouldn't the provincial government here want to be a positive outlier on this

and provide…? I can't imagine that there's a huge number of cases like this. Certainly,

in the cases that are…. We really want to be supporting parents in the best way we

can. Why wouldn't we provide this service to parents?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I appreciate the point that he's trying

to make.

The bill does not do what he wants at this point. Maybe at some point in the future,

the program will get expanded further. At this point, what we're doing is some significant

expansion, particularly as it relates to family members.

One of the things I'd like to point out about what we already do in this province

is…. This relates to what the member is talking about in terms of the adult, what

families are eligible for when it does involve a minor. In nearly every other province,

those benefits are only available if there has been a fatality that is a minor. In

this province, that's not the case.

I know what the member would like to achieve, but what we're doing is a significant

expansion of what is a good program. We are making it the most robust in the province.

We may well get to where the member wants to get to at some point.

The Chair: I'll go to the House Leader of the Third Party, and then I'm going to go back to the

other questioner for a few questions as well.

A. Olsen: Yeah. It's definitely going to be the most robust in the province.

I'll just ask the final question here. I do have one other

section of questions that

I'll ask once my colleague has some time here.

I'll just ask this question. Would this change be available only through a legislative

change, or would the minister be able to make this change to, say, add families for

the wage and income support through regulation, as the legislation and regulations

are currently written or as they would be written once this bill passes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

It would probably be a combination of both, hon. Member, legislative and regulatory.

[3:00 p.m.]

K. Kirkpatrick: I'm going to talk about volume again. What is the anticipated level of applications

that the CVAP branch will receive now that access is being expanded? What is anticipated

in terms of an increase?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I can't give the member a specific answer in what we're anticipating in terms of expansion,

because it depends on a number of factors, and particularly when the program is now

expanded to include witnesses. It will depend on the nature of the situation. It'll

depend on the witness themselves. I can't give the member a number that I could say:

hey, you could be confident that it would be 10 percent or 20 percent.

What I can tell you is that we know that it's a positive change that's taking place,

and it's something I think that is going to benefit. Ideally, you would not have to

deal with anybody, because there would not be any violent crime, right? The reality

is we know there is. What we're wanting to do is to ensure that those who are impacted

are able to access services.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you for that answer. I certainly understand that it's going to be something

where you've actually got to see. You'll start to see what that volume is going to

be, and then adjust accordingly for it.

With that in mind, is the minister anticipating changing staffing levels within the

branch? How many full-time employees are there at this point, and how many are anticipated,

if there is an anticipation, are going to be required to manage the increase?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate that question. Yes, we are anticipating the need for additional staffing,

and we're looking at increasing the number of positions by ten, from 47 to 57.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister for that.

It's important that when we're making changes to legislation and we are changing service

expectations for those who are actually providing services, that we ask questions

and we have consultation. Can the minister list which organizations were consulted

regarding the changes and the expanded

definitions and which professional organizations

or groups were spoken to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There has been quite an extensive consultation process take place. A lot of it was

held as part of the consultation with the gender-based violence action plan. It included

a wide range of stakeholders in the anti-violence sector, Indigenous partners.

Just on the Indigenous part, it included the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, Métis

Nation B.C., Native Courtworker and Counselling Association of B.C., Protect our Indigenous

Sisters Society, the Southern Stl'atl'imx Health Society, Stó:lō Nation and Union

of B.C. Indian Chiefs, for example.

[3:05 p.m.]

It also included representatives from B.C. Society of Transition Houses, Ending Violence

Association of B.C., Police Victim Services of B.C., Northern Society for Domestic

Peace, West Coast LEAF, other advocacy organizations, Students for Consent Culture,

B.C. Federation of Labour and Inclusion B.C., QMUNITY. A whole range of consultation

has taken place on the development of the bill.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. That is an extensive list, and I appreciate that.

If I can clarify, as counselling is a significant part of the services provided and

required, were the College of Psychologists or B.C. Psychological Association consulted

at all in the legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The B.C. Association of Clinical Counsellors was consulted.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. Psychologists are your counsellors? Are your counsellors

not certified psychologists that are then approved by CVAP? Maybe I'm getting the

titles mixed up.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. Yes, we can pay registered psychologists, for

example. We can also pay registered clinical counsellors.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is there a wait-list at this point for applications for psychologists or for clinical

counsellors to be approved by CVAP?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I'm not aware of any wait-lists at this time. Clients are

free to choose the counselling professional of their choice. Any counselling professional

can apply for registration with the crime victim assistance program.

We will register counsellors with a range of qualifications, from those with a two-year

diploma in counselling to master's level counsellors to psychologists. So that full

range is there, and people are able to choose the professional of their choice.

K. Kirkpatrick: Is the minister able to tell us how many psychologists or clinical counsellors are

currently CVAP approved?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't have that specific number, but I'm more than happy to get it for the member.

K. Kirkpatrick: I've just got a couple more on this clause.

How many complaints has the minister or the ministry received? Is the minister aware

of complaints that organizations are not taking more clients, that there are challenges

with wait-lists?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'm not sure if this is where the member is at, but I don't think there's any related

to CVAP. I'm wondering if you're more referring to community-based organizations,

which is a different thing from CVAP.

K. Kirkpatrick: I probably asked that backwards.

There are organizations that have contracts with government in order to be able to

provide the CVAP programs. Of those organizations, is the minister aware that there

are wait-lists with those organizations for victims to access services?

[3:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I'm going to correct both you and myself on what is a pet

peeve of mine, particularly when people are listening, and that is the use of acronyms.

When you and I are saying CVAP, we know what it means, but it means crime victim assistance

program.

What I would say in answer to the member's question is we don't have any contracts

that are delivered through the crime victim assistance program.

K. Kirkpatrick: I appreciate the answer with respect to the crime victim assistance program, and I

shall say that in future.

May I then ask — perhaps this is something I should know, but I maybe have misunderstood

how this runs, then — if there are not contracts, with MPSSG, with specific non-profits

or counselling organizations, who is delivering the crime victim assistance program

services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

We have staff who administer the program. But it is the applicant, the victim, who

is the one who chooses the counsellor, the counselling professional, that they want

to use.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

I think I'm perhaps using the wrong language here. When I talk about administering

the program, certainly I understand that that's within ministry that is administering

the program. But when a victim has the ability to choose their own counsellor, what

I'm understanding, then, is that as long as that person is crime victim assistance

program–certified, the ministry deals directly and pays directly that counsellor.

It's not as part of a broader contract under a non-profit counselling group.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

A. Olsen: Before we move on…. I think the question that I have around reimbursement should come

section 3. Just one follow-up question to the eligibility for income support that

I was asking about prior to my colleague.

I'm just wondering if the minister would be open to making the legislative change

and leaving it to regulation whether or not families can receive that income support.

Doing the legislative work now that the bill is open seems to be a natural way to

indicate to families that perhaps, in the future, there is an opportunity to do it

without having to open the bill back up again.

We're discussing it now. Why not provide that as an option that could just be done

in regulation?

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

I understand what the member is trying to do, and I appreciate that. But what he's

also suggesting would be an important change in the expansion of the program. There

would have to be policy work done. There would have to be cabinet approval, drafting,

all of those things. I know there would be a lot of work that would have to be done.

I think, as I said, hopefully we can get there at some point. But right now, this

is the bill that we've got before us.

[3:15 p.m.]

A. Olsen: I'll just say this. I'm disappointed that children are left out of this, but I respect

the conversation and discussion that we've had this afternoon. I wanted to make sure

that it was on the record.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

K. Kirkpatrick: This looks at expanding benefits from one to two years. Can the minister walk through

the process of extending the time limit for making applications from one year to two

years? How was that decision made?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

In our province, there's a two-year time limit for a civil claim, and we're aligning

it with that.

K. Kirkpatrick: Will increasing the time limit also be applicable to victims who are under the guardianship

of B.C.? I presume this is going to be the same for everyone.

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, it wouldn't because minors have the ability to apply up until two years after

their 19th birthday.

K. Kirkpatrick: On September 17, 2021, there was a class action lawsuit certified in the Supreme Court

of B.C. It was brought forward by former children in care who were not provided the

information to apply for the program and subsequently have not received any victim

benefits of the program, given the application window was one year past the age of

You may have answered this, and the Third Party House Leader may have dealt with this,

but the government has now expanded that window. Was there any consideration to provide

an exemption to the timeline for applications specifically applicable to anyone who

was in care prior to 1972?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, this legislation is not retroactive. The previous…. It was one year after the

19th birthday. This will now extend it to two years after that 19th birthday.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

A. Olsen: With respect to reimbursement, I think this is probably…. I recognize that this is

where we deal with some reimbursements.

One of the things that has come to our attention is the length of time. In the minister's

response to me, there is an acknowledgment of the overburden, and the minister mentioned

earlier that there's going to be an increase of staff by ten FTEs, I guess.

There is a situation here where folks are required to pay for their services up front,

and then get reimbursed. That reimbursement often takes weeks, if not months, in order

for it to happen.

[3:20 p.m.]

This will have a disproportionate impact on those who can least afford to pay for

those services up front. Indeed, they might be forced to make some decisions to not

receive the supportive services that they need, and their quality of life will deteriorate

as a result of that.

Can the minister provide some insights as to why he feels that this is the best approach

and if there are not other approaches that may be possible in order to streamline

the process for people, especially those who can't afford to pay up front, to be able

to access the services that they're entitled to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. That would only be in a case of before a claim is accepted.

But the reality is that once a claim is accepted, then we can pay directly. At the

same time, we also have the ability and do…. For example, in cases of hardship, and

that would include financial hardship, we can expedite and will expedite the claim

process.

A. Olsen: Thank you, Minister. Likely just one final question on this.

I know that the minister can't…. I'm not going to be disclosing the individual situations

here. It's not appropriate. It's going to make this question very difficult for the

minister to answer, and I respect that, but I feel like I have to honour the fact

of the time that I've spent and the conversations that I've had with constituents.

They are experiencing these delays. They're experiencing the situation where they

have to pay for those services up front, and the services that the minister outlined

are not necessarily working or working as the minister described them.

Perhaps I'll give the minister the opportunity to respond to that. However, it's more

just a statement that if that's how the system is designed to work or supposed to

work, there's a situation where that's not necessarily what's being delivered. I simply

thought it would be important to bring it to the minister's attention in this forum.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I do appreciate the issue the member is trying to raise. I'll say two things. One,

if there are specific cases that you've seen that are particularly problematic, then

I would suggest you can bring them forward, and I'm more than happy to look into them

and see what we can do.

The other issue, though, is that we are actively looking at how we can make the program

more efficient, more effective. We always want to find out if there are issues, where

there are gaps and things that we can fix. I'll say this. I think the addition of

ten additional staff is going to help in that regard.

K. Kirkpatrick: When we're looking at expanding services and making sure that people are getting the

supports they need, can the minister explain how, or give an example of how, a maximum

period for reimbursement of expenses would benefit victims?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As this is a financial program, there is a policy around having a time limit, which

currently is one year.

That being said, what it does is give us the flexibility to look at how programs are

working and, if necessary, for example, bring it into line with the claim process.

You could, potentially, be looking at it going to two years, for example.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. My understanding is that that maximum period will be developed

and put into regulation. I'm just going to ask two questions here at the same time.

They're related.

What kind of maximum period is being considered to be in the regulation? And if, for

example, a victim is unable to find services, say counselling services, and they go

on a list, because we know there are not enough clinical counsellors or psychologists,

is it possible for someone's benefits to expire with this amendment in place?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The policy work in that area is being done, but no, it wouldn't impact future benefit

costs.

Clause 3 approved.

On clause 4.

K. Kirkpatrick: This deals with not legally capable of forming intent. How will this benefit victims?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is intended to deal with, let's say, a victim who is a victim of someone who's

been found, for example, not criminally responsible.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister. The reasoning to establish intent when the person was not

legally capable of forming intent…. That was the reason for this change?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's the issue of intent, but then there are also cases where they're not able

to establish the intent because they've been found not criminally responsible.

Clauses 4 and 5 approved.

On clause 6.

K. Kirkpatrick: Provide discretion to the director. This is something new. Can the minister outline

how this change will be a benefit for victims?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It is a benefit for the victim versus the current act. Currently, the act does not

allow any flexibility for the director to consider appropriate deductions from a judgment

or a settlement if the victim sues the offender. The full amount of the judgment or

the settlement must be deducted from ongoing crime victim assistance program benefits.

[3:30 p.m.]

This would mean, for example, if someone is very seriously injured, and they have

personal care supports in place funded by the victim assistance program, there could

be a disruption of those services while the settlement funds are used, and then the

crime victim assistance program–funded services would resume once the settlement is

exhausted. This could have a significant negative impact on the victim's continuity

of care. That's why this

section is now here and has been added.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

K. Kirkpatrick: Can the minister provide the rationale for the change from "must" to "may" with respect

to payment to legal representatives?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This

section is there because the way it's currently written, it presumes that the

person cannot accept, let's say, a payment and that if they have a legal representative,

that payment must go to the representative and then from the representative to the

victim. Now it means that no, it may go to a representative, but it may also go directly

to the victim.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

K. Kirkpatrick: With respect to the director's discretion, can the minister provide the reasoning

behind the shift from "receipt" to "request" for information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This

section clarifies that an assessment can be made in one of two ways, either (

a) by the director or (

b) by the applicant.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

What are the conditions or provisions for the director to make a request for information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The director may initiate a reassessment based on new information that is received.

K. Kirkpatrick: Thank you to the minister.

If a person does not provide the information requested, what would be the consequences?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would impede our ability to assess their eligibility for a benefit.

K. Kirkpatrick: Now, if I'm asking this in the right place, with respect to commencement, when does

the minister anticipate the regulations being completed and brought into force?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Later this fall.

[3:35 p.m.]

Clauses 8 to 19 inclusive approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 3:36 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 37 — CRIME VICTIM ASSISTANCE

AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 37, Crime Victim Assistance Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete without amendment,

read a third time and passed.

Hon. B. Bailey: I call continued Committee of the Whole for Bill 34, please.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION OF

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 3:39 p.m.

The Chair: We're going to take a recess for five minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:39 p.m. to 3:43 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll call the committee back to order. We are dealing with Bill 34, Restricting Public

Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

On clause 3.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to move two amendments to clause 3 and clause 4 that I provide to the Clerk.

The intent of the proposed amendments to clauses 3 and 4 is to clarify that if a police

officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a person has recently consumed an illegal

substance in one of the areas or places listed under clause 3, they can direct the

person to leave. These amendments will make it clear that police can act under

section

4 based on a recent call for service and that they do not need to directly observe

the consumption of the illegal substance.

Further, to clarify, this is one of the reasons why we stood down: to ensure in our

consultation that everyone has an understanding of the intent of the clause. This

amendment will make sure that happens not only for those who are having to enforce

but also those who are subject to the legislation.

[ CLAUSE 3, by adding the underlined text as shown:

Consumption of illegal substances

(1) A person must not consume an illegal substance in any of the following areas

or places or remain in any of the following areas or places after consuming an illegal substance

in the area or place :

(

a) the area within 15 m of any of the following places:

(

i) any part of a play structure in a playground;

(ii) a spray pool or wading pool;

(iii) a skate park;

(

b) any of the following places if the public has a right of access to the place:

(

i) a sports field;

(ii) a beach;

(iii) a park within the meaning of the Park Act ;

(iv) a regional park within the meaning of the Local Government Act ;

(

v) an outdoor area established by a local government for purposes of community recreation;

(vi) a permanent public park over which the Park Board has jurisdiction under

section

488 of the Vancouver Charter ;

(vii) a park held in trust by a local government;

(

c) the area within 6 m of the outside of the entrance to any of the following places:

(

i) a place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or

implied, whether or not a fee is charged for entry;

(ii) a workplace;

(iii) a prescribed place;

(

d) the area within 6 m of the outside of the entrance to a place occupied as a residence,

if the public has a right of access to the area;

(

e) the area within 6 m of a public transit bus stop;

(

f) a prescribed place;

(

g) the area within a prescribed distance from a prescribed place.

(2) Subsection (1) (a), (

b) and (

e) does not apply to an area to which the public

does not have a right of access.]

The Chair: We'll take a brief recess to get copies made and distributed. Then we'll move forward.

The committee recessed from 3:45 p.m. to 3:50 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

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

The two amendments that have been introduced have been copied and shared with those

in the House. We will share an electronic copy with those online as soon as it's available.

We're dealing with the amendment to clause 3.

Amendment approved.

On clause 3 as amended.

E. Sturko: I hope that this is the right time. I would like to move an amendment to clause 3

of Bill 34.

[ Clause 3, by deleting the text shown as struck out and adding the underlined test as shown:

Consumption of illegal substances

(1) A person must not consume an illegal substance in any of the following areas or

places:

(

a) the area within 15 m of any of the following places:

(

i) any part of a play structure in a playground;

(ii) a spray pool or wading pool;

(iii) a skate park;

(

b) any of the following places if the public has a right of access to the place:

(

i) a sports field;

(ii) a beach;

(iii) a park within the meaning of the Park Act ;

(iv) a regional park within the meaning of the Local Government Act ;

(

v) an outdoor area established by a local government for purposes of community recreation;

(vi) a permanent public park over which the Park Board has jurisdiction under

section

488 of the Vancouver Charter ;

(vii) a park held in trust by a local government;

(

c) the area within 6 m of the outside of the entrance to any of the following places:

(

i) a place to which the public has access as of right or by invitation, express or

implied, whether or not a fee is charged for entry;

(ii) a workplace;

(iii) a prescribed place;

(

d) the area within 6 m of the outside of the entrance to a place occupied as a residence,

if the public has a right of access to the area;

(

e) the area within 6 m of a public transit bus stop;

(

f) a prescribed place;

(

g) the area within a prescribed distance from a prescribed place.

(

f) a hospital, which has the same meaning as in

Section 1 of the Hospital Act , except for areas that are designated as an overdose prevention site or supervised

consumption site:

(

i) for the purposes of this section, an "overdose prevention site" means a place

where overdose prevention services are provided;

(ii) for the purposes of this section, a "supervised consumption site" has the same

meaning as the exemption granted under

section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada);

(

g) a medical facility, defined here as a medical clinic or the office of a medical

practitioner that is owned, operated or funded by a regional health board, except

for areas that are designated as an overdose prevention site or supervised consumption

site:

(

i) for the purposes of this section, an "overdose prevention site" means a place

where overdose prevention services are provided;

(ii) for the purposes of this section, a "supervised consumption site" has the same

meaning as the exemption granted under

section 56.1 of the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act (Canada);

(

h) a prescribed place;

(

i) the area within a prescribed distance from a prescribed place.

(2) Subsection (1) (a), (

b) and (

e) does not apply to an area to which the public

does not have a right of access.]

The Chair: Would you like to speak to it, and we will circulate?

On the amendment.

E. Sturko: Yes, I would like to speak to it.

If I might just be indulged for a moment to talk about why I feel that this is an

important amendment to make.

I recently had interactions with a number of nurses, and I've received a number of

correspondence to my office from people that work in the health care setting. From

what I understand, and from our discussion a day and a half ago, hospitals are already

a place where the consumption of illicit drugs would be forbidden. Yet in spite of

that being the case, a number of health care providers, especially nurses, are impacted

by drug use.

It's taking place in hospital rooms, so people are using illicit drugs in their rooms.

People are using illicit drugs in washrooms, unfortunately, in clinic washrooms, and

areas where they're in health care settings.

One of those other extremely concerning places is in long-term care facilities, where

nurses have identified that individuals who are being now placed into long-term care

facilities — seniors facilities — are using drugs. They've seen an increase in the

amount of drug dealers attending those areas, and again, both clientele of those locations

and health care workers in those settings are being exposed to toxic drug smoke.

Multiple incidents in hospitals across British Columbia where nurses have been exposed

to drug smoke from illicit drugs in hospital rooms and have actually had to go to

the emergency room for treatment. What the nurses reported to me was that they feel

a lot of pressure not to report those incidents. They are being told that it would

harm what's happening with the treatment of drugs, and it will stigmatize people.

Of course, we don't want to criminalize people. That's the intent of the pilot. But

we also want to make sure that health care workers have as much protection as possible.

I'm really concerned by what health care providers, particularly front-line nurses,

have told me is the case for them. We know that, for example, in the emergency room

setting, especially in my own home community of Surrey, at Surrey Memorial Hospital,

they're very overrun at times with unhoused people, people with substance use issues,

particularly as the weather gets bad. People are coming in for warm blankets. People

are coming in for sandwiches and often, then, sometimes wander and are using illicit

substances within the hospital.

I'm just making it clear and codifying, I think, for health care workers that this

is something that is not accepted. I know it's already covered in "workplace" as the

definition, but I think it really needs something special.

[3:55 p.m.]

It needs special attention in this definition that we've put together here. It does

specify, though, that if there is a prescribed area within the hospital…. Another

hospital that serves my constituency, Peace Arch, has an overdose prevention site,

safe consumption area. But those areas, of course, are places that people can use

illicit substances. They can use illegal drugs there.

We just want to make sure that nurses and doctors and other allied health workers

have the full protection that they deserve when they're working in high-risk environments.

Along with the exposure to the smoke from drugs that are being used, nurses also reported

to me that they're often being poked with uncapped needles that they're finding in

bed sheets. It's really concerning. I was very disturbed, actually, by what they told

me.

I hope that, in taking your time to just look at our proposed amendment…. The intention

here is not to try to further criminalize people or to dissuade them from coming for

medical help. But we want to recognize that in coming for medical help — for example,

to a hospital or clinic — we are codifying the right to work in a safe environment

for nurses and other health care workers that are at the front line of the crisis

we're currently facing. We don't want to see nurses getting poisoned.

Actually, it reminds me of one other thing that they told me is a concern for them.

Because of the amount of drug consumption they are seeing within health care facilities,

nurses are also worried they're going to then give someone medication that's actually

prescribed to them because of their hospital visit and overdose that person. With

someone using an unknown substance and then, on top of that, receiving perhaps a prescribed

substance in the hospital, maybe a pain reliever or something, the danger of actually

overdosing someone in the hospital is significant, and they are worried about the

impacts on their own careers.

Thank you for the time to bring forward this amendment and for your consideration

to just add some, I guess, more codified language that would signal the importance

of making sure that health care workers have safe environments where they're free

from toxic illicit drugs.

The Chair: We're going to take a short recess while the Chair reviews the amendment.

The House recessed from 3:57 p.m. to 4:06 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We'll call the committee back to order. The proposal is to add two new paragraphs,

the text of which has been provided to members. It's been proposed by the member for

Surrey South. Any debate on the amendment?

S. Furstenau: I am not able to support this amendment for a number of reasons, which I won't go

into because I want to talk to the clause itself as has been amended already.

This particular amendment really deals with health infrastructure, which I don't think

is the jurisdiction of this ministry or this minister. I think that should there be

needs for action within health infrastructure or within the health care system that

the avenue for that is not through the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to speak briefly to the amendment. I will not be supporting the amendment.

I appreciate the spirit with which the member proposed it.

There are a number of considerations. One, the legislation is for outdoor public drug

use. Indoors, we talked about in the past couple of days. The hospitals — health authorities

have the power, right now, to set policies and regulations as regards to their facility.

WorkSafe has rules and procedures and policies in place around safe worksites, which

we want to see for everybody regardless of where they work.

On that basis, we will not be supporting the amendment, but I do appreciate the spirit

in which it was offered.

Amendment negatived.

S. Furstenau: Not wanting to be left out, I have a proposed amendment to this clause.

[ (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to either of the following:

(

i) an area in which people have a right to shelter;

(ii) an area in which there is no safe consumption service or urgent public health

need site.

(ii) an area in which there is no overdoes prevention or urgent public health need

site.

(ii) an area that is not within a reasonable distance from a safe consumption service

or urgent public health need site.

(ii) an area that is not within a reasonable distance from an overdose prevention

or urgent public health need site. ]

The Chair: Would the member wish to speak to the amendment? Then we'll take a short recess and

distribute it and assure that it is in order.

On the amendment.

S. Furstenau: The intention of this legislation, as stated by the minister, is to: "direct people

away from what are, in most communities, deemed to be inappropriate places for public

drug use." The minister states that an appropriate place to use drugs would be an

overdose prevention site, but safe consumption services are not available across B.C.

The member for Saanich North and the Islands and myself have raised concerns about

sites across the province. Therefore, we believe that this legislation should not

apply in areas where there are no overdose prevention sites available.

[4:10 p.m.]

Indeed, we have canvassed the minister at great length to identify what he would consider

to be an appropriate site for drug consumption. He has not provided anything other

than to suggest that a safe consumption site is an appropriate site. When there are

only 46 of these in the entire province, and most of them close by eight o'clock at

night, that leaves a lot of people with, apparently, according to the minister, no

appropriate place. I think that this question has to be answered.

We are, with this legislation, trying to take a public health emergency and turn it

into something that we don't have to look at anymore because it makes us uncomfortable.

It should make us uncomfortable. It makes me incredibly uncomfortable. It makes me

uncomfortable that six people die in this province every day because we are not appropriately

dealing with a public health emergency.

The more that this health emergency becomes politicized, the more it's starting to

seem like politicians telling health experts how to do their jobs. We would never

do that with cancer. We wouldn't stand in this place and have a little political debate

about how to address people's cancer treatment. Yet we have deeply politicized a seven-year-old

health emergency in this building.

On top of that, another crisis — the number of unhoused people in this province continues

to dramatically increase due to a lack of support, a lack of investment in non-market

housing, a lack of investment in supportive housing. Thousands of people are forced

to live outdoors, are forced to find shelter for themselves outdoors. In a lot of

cases, that shelter that they find for themselves is in areas that this bill will

now indicate as inappropriate for drug consumption.

B.C. case law has established that people have the right to provide their own shelter.

What a place we've come to — that a judge has to indicate that people in B.C. have

a right to shelter.

We are concerned about the disproportionate impact that this legislation is going

to have on unhoused and precariously housed community members, on people, the public

— people who need support, not further marginalization, not to be criminalized because

they are unhoused, because they are poor, because they are using a substance.

For these reasons, we are introducing amendments to Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption

of Illegal Substances Act.

The Chair: The committee will now take a recess.

The committee recessed from 4:13 p.m. to 4:20 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

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

S. Furstenau: On a Wednesday that feels like a Friday, I'm asking for unanimous consent of the House

to withdraw the motion that I put forward with the amendments. I have the proper one

now.

Leave granted.

Amendment withdrawn.

S. Furstenau: Further to the comments I made, the proposed amendment that we have to clause 3 is

to move that the clause be further amended by adding the following underlined text,

as shown, after clause 3(2).

[ (3) Subsection (1) does not apply to either of the following:

(

i) an area in which people have a right to shelter;

(ii) an area that is not within a reasonable distance from a safe consumption service

or urgent public health need site. ]

On the amendment.

A. Olsen: I appreciate the opportunity to enter into this debate at this stage. I think that

it's important that I emphasize my colleague's point that the minister has been given

several opportunities throughout this debate to identify what he considers to be an

appropriate place for people to go. We're very clear on the areas that the minister

is deeming inappropriate. We can see that in the bill here. It's interesting that

schools aren't part of that. I recognize playgrounds are. On the minister's website,

primary schools and secondary schools are identified but not in this list.

What are listed in this list are places where people can go and seek shelter overnight.

We've seen this in the city of Victoria, and we've seen this in communities around

the province. Where people have no place to go, they're able to set up tents in parks.

They're allowed to camp there. There's been a lot of case law around this. In many

instances, in most instances, they have to move on at a certain time in the morning,

but they're allowed to be there, and they're allowed to seek shelter there.

Again, to point out the absolute mess that this government has made of this…. Even

though the minister, in the second day of discussion, has decoupled this entirely

from the decriminalization project that his government was taking victory laps on

earlier this year….

Because they failed to deliver appropriate places for British Columbians to go in

communities across the province, because they didn't provide a comprehensive package

of policy, programs and services, harm reduction services, rather than just celebrating

the decriminalization piece, the singular piece of it, they failed to deliver the

other programs and services that are required in order for there to be some coherence

in this. But this government has created an incoherent package of programs and services

that doesn't make any sense.

[4:25 p.m.]

This is yet another example of that, where there are not appropriate places — and

those are the minister's words — to go and consume illicit substances, which individuals

can legally possess. Now, even if there's a suspicion, they can be harassed by police

officers. What's included in this list are places where people are legally able to

shelter themselves overnight, set up a tent and find a place to get some sleep. That's

the reason why I support this initiative from my colleague.

I think that the minister hazards a scenario here where, unnecessarily, because of

the failure of his own government, we've created this confusing layering of policies

and now responses in legislation and letters of support from the federal government.

That, frankly, is going to take the courts to navigate. I don't think that was the

intention of anybody in this exercise and in this pilot project — to create a more

complex legislative, regulatory and social services framework.

When it comes right down to it, this is a conversation about the increasing poverty

in our society and a socioeconomic system that is not serving people. These are the

most vulnerable, marginalized folks in our society. We're creating an absolute bureaucratic

mess as a response to the challenges that they face.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

It's appalling. I'm sad that this is the way that this government has taken what should

have been a positive step forward and made it an impossible situation.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll be brief on this, because we have spent a lot of time over the last two days

talking about the points that the member has raised. I've responded to those. Obviously,

there's a disagreement with us. I've made it clear that this government is committed

and has been expanding overdose prevention sites and will continue to do that, along

with all the other services, and address the issues around poverty, which we all agree

are part and parcel of this.

As I've pointed out, this legislation deals with specific outdoor public drug use.

Responding to community public concerns, it strikes a balance on the right approach

forward.

I'll not be supporting this amendment.

Amendment negatived.

S. Furstenau: Clause 3(1) now, as amended, includes that people cannot remain in these places.

A person must not consume an illegal substance in any of the following places, and

there's a long list here: any part of a play structure, playground, spray pool, wading

pool, skate park, sports field, beach, a park within the meaning of the Park Act,

a regional park within the meaning of the Local Government Act, an outdoor area established

by local government for purposes of purposes of community recreation, a permanent

public park in which the park board has jurisdiction under

section 488, a park held

in trust by the local government, an area within six metres outside the entrance of

any of the following places: a place to which the public has access as any right or

invitation, expressed or implied, whether or not a fee is charged for entry; a workplace;

a prescribed place; an area within six metres of the outside of the entrance to a

place occupied as a residence, if the public has a right of access to the area; an

area within six metres of a public transit bus stop; a prescribed place; and the area

within a prescribed distance from a prescribed place.

Can the minister provide any evidence, data or consultation that led to the determining

of the places listed in this

section of the bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I know that we are taking a vote from another committee, so I will move right now

that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 4:30 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Committee of the Whole (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to

sit again.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — EMERGENCY AND DISASTER

MANAGEMENT ACT

Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, reported complete without amendment.

Mr. Speaker: When shall the bill be read a third time?

Hon. L. Beare: Now.

Mr. Speaker: Members, you have heard the question; it's third reading of Bill 31, Emergency and

Disaster Management Act.

Division has been called.

[4:35 p.m. - 4:45 p.m.]

Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act, read a third time and passed on the

following division:

yeas — 42

Anderson

Bailey

Bains

Beare

Begg

Brar

Chandra Herbert

Chen

Chow

Conroy

Coulter

Dean

D'Eith

Dix

Donnelly

Dykeman

Farnworth

Furstenau

Glumac

Greene

Kahlon

Kang

Leonard

Lore

Malcolmson

Mercier

Olsen

Paddon

Parmar

Popham

Routledge

Routley

Russell

Sharma

Simons

Sims

A. Singh

R. Singh

Starchuk

Whiteside

Yao

nays — 22

Ashton

Banman

Bernier

Bond

Doerkson

Halford

Kirkpatrick

Kyllo

Letnick

Merrifield

Morris

Oakes

Paton

Ross

Rustad

Shypitka

Stewart

Stone

Sturdy

Sturko

Tegart

Wat

Hon. R. Kahlon: Hon. Speaker, in this chamber, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 34, Restricting

Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole for Bill 38, International

Credentials Recognition Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION OF

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 34; S. Chandra Herbert in

the chair.

The committee met at 4:49 p.m.

On clause 3 (continued) .

The Chair: I'll draw the committee to order. We're looking at Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption

of Illegal Substances Act.

S. Furstenau: I can repeat my question. The question was on the evidence, data and consultation

that led to determining the lists of places in this clause.

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I mean, the question is basically the same one as I answered a couple of days ago.

There was a significant amount of consultation done on the development of this legislation

from both experts and in terms of local governments and UBCM and, as I mentioned in

our previous discussions, First Nations. There has been a lot of consultation that

has taken place in the development of the bill.

S. Furstenau: How about data? Can the minister speak to the rates of substance use in these particular

areas that have led to this particular list of places being put into this clause?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, we have dealt with this question. The answer I gave that last time was that

this is based on concerns being raised by the public and by local government about

places that they were seeing where they were concerned about public drug use. It's

on that basis that we have brought forward this legislation in concert with consultation

with experts in health, policing agencies and local government.

S. Furstenau: I think the reason why the questions keep getting asked is partly because the answers

aren't particularly satisfying or thorough.

The minister has indicated that this is about sentiment. This is about concerns. In

the hierarchy of evidence, we're talking about anecdotal, as opposed to what I've

been asking for, which is data that would be reinforcing why these decisions are made.

In essence, this list of locations in this clause is a de facto…. Essentially what

we get to is public drug use has been made illegal, because as of yet, I have not

heard from the minister of anywhere that he can identify, other than a safe consumption

site, that he would call an appropriate place for drug use.

When you go through this list, I cannot identify, really, a public place that hasn't

been listed on here. So maybe the minister can provide that information. For a person

who is unhoused and using substances, can the minister describe — in absence of a

safe consumption site, because there are only 46 in B.C., and they close at eight

o'clock — where, after this legislation is passed, would that person be not considered

to be in illegal activity if they are consuming drugs?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member asking the questions. I've given the answer. It's not that

I haven't given an answer. It's just that the member doesn't like the answer. I think,

you know, that's part of the challenge. The reality is this: it's anywhere that's

not specified in the legislation.

I also want to make this point. I think most members of the public would find the

idea that somehow their concerns that at a park, where kids gather or families gather

to have a picnic, or at a bus stop…. The idea that someone shooting up in public at

those locations is somehow anecdotal or to be devalued — I think it's just wrong.

As I've explained and said previously in our discussions, the public support the work

that's being done. They want to see an expansion of overdose prevention sites and

supports and services — absolutely. I think all of us want to see that. Government

is committed to doing that.

We have gone from one to 46 in terms of the bricks-and-mortar overdose prevention

sites. And there are mobile overdose prevention sites. We're working with communities

and health authorities to make sure that there are more.

But at the same time, to somehow dismiss the concerns of people in communities as

though that's not relevant or shouldn't be taken into account — that's not acceptable.

That is not how you build public support.

Those are concerns that are coming from communities. Those are coming from people

who go to public spaces with their families, and they don't want to expose their kids

to that kind of public drug use. That doesn't mean they don't support overdose prevention

sites. It doesn't mean they don't support all the services. They do.

It's about a balance. And that's what this legislation is about. It's providing that

balance in concert with all the other programs and initiatives that are being undertaken

in different ministries within government to deal with the toxic drug crisis and,

at the same time, also letting the public know that we do take their concerns seriously

and that we are ensuring that they are also being heard.

That's the approach that we've taken with this legislation. That's the approach that

we're going to take after this legislation.

As I've stated a number of times, this isn't about criminalizing people. It's about

providing a tool to move people on. That's what local governments asked for. That's

what we've been working with police on. And this is the way in which that's being

accomplished.

I understand what the member wants. We are getting to where we need to be by, as I've

said, the expansion of services and the provision and the funding that's gone into

other ministries. But I really do believe that if you don't recognize public concerns,

then you're not going to get the support you need for all the other things that you

want to do.

S. Furstenau: I think the minister might be misinterpreting my questions. I understand public concerns

on a myriad of fronts.

[5:00 p.m.]

I spent months and months listening to public concerns about the drug poisoning crisis,

as a part of the committee. I heard more from the public about this issue than most

people in this House, so I take very seriously the public concerns, but what I think

the public is also concerned with is six people dying every day. I think the public

is concerned with thousands upon thousands of people in B.C. not having a place to

live.

I'm not trying to be difficult when I ask this question, because I didn't get an answer

to it last time. In this clause, it includes parks of all kinds. It's defined parks.

The Park Act. Parks, according to the Vancouver Charter. A park held by a local government.

At the same time, we have court decisions in B.C. that have upheld people's rights

to shelter in parks.

My question comes back to what I just asked. If a person is unhoused and is sheltering

in a park, according to this clause, in this legislation, a person must not consume

an illegal substance in that area, so what is the expectation of enforcement officers

in that scenario?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll make a couple of points on this.

First, this isn't, as I've said a number of times, about police SWAT teams going out

and looking for people. It's about specified areas where people are gathering, and

those are outlined. They're just parks where kids and families are. That's where the

focus will be. It's not sort of teams of police going out, combing the province, looking

at every nook and cranny to confront people. That's not what this is about.

The member raises the right to shelter. I understand that. We also understand court

rulings around that. That's why, when it comes to the development of regulations,

we would obviously be taking those things into consideration. Again, it comes back

to what I said earlier: we are taking a balanced approach in terms of the development

of this legislation.

S. Furstenau: There are businesses and workplaces that actually advertise the availability of naloxone

on site. People may choose to use substances near those businesses as a potential

life-saving measure. How are we ensuring that those people can still receive life-saving

support if it's needed?

[5:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. This legislation isn't intended to be punitive. If a business

has naloxone and someone overdosed outside their door and they used the naloxone on

them, no one's going to be punished or ticketed. That's not what this is about.

E. Sturko: Just in reference to one of the questions asked by the Leader of the Third Party,

how does he anticipate regulations under the legislation being made to take into consideration

people that are sheltering within the prescribed areas?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There still hasn't been a determination made in terms of what that potentially would

look like. But I can tell you what it will not look like. It will not be where kids

and families gather.

E. Sturko: Thank you. I appreciate that response from the Solicitor General.

In clause 3, can the minister share how the location distances were determined? Specifically,

why was it 15 metres from a play structure? Why not further, or at the minimum of

15 metres from any park that includes a play structure?

[5:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is the distance that was in the Health Canada exemption. It's also the distance

that is in a number of local government bylaws.

E. Sturko: What about public plazas, libraries or busking areas? Are those captured under this

clause?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It depends where they're located, in terms of one of the specified areas that is laid

out in the bill.

E. Sturko: To the Solicitor General, can he please outline specifically…? What's meant by "an

outdoor area established by a local government for purposes of community recreation"?

Specifically, will that include trails, open fields that aren't sports fields explicitly

— areas where families might play bocce or frisbee — or open-air theatres?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's intended to be things such as outdoor ice rinks, outdoor rinks, outdoor lacrosse

boxes, tennis courts, things where people gather and recreate that are not necessarily

in a park, for example, and that would not be classed as a sports field.

E. Sturko: Thank you for the response.

If it's for the purpose of recreation, will that include trails, specifically?

[5:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I would say it is situation-dependent. If it's in a park, it would be covered. If

it's not in a park, it could be dependent on whether it's a trail that people are

just using to get from point A to B. That would be the difference.

E. Sturko: What about the Galloping Goose Trail?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

No, this probably wouldn't be covered. This is more of a transportation corridor.

E. Sturko: It's important to note that the clause and this bill are specific to the consumption

of drugs, not the possession of drugs. Can the minister please explain why this government

felt that continuing to allow the possession of drugs in these areas and places was

acceptable, given that we've had multiple reports in B.C. of kids finding drugs left

behind in recreation areas, playgrounds and fields?

Hon. M. Farnworth: All I'd say is this: this bill is not about possession. It is about public drug use.

E. Sturko: I do understand that this is a bill related to the consumption of illicit substances

in prescribed areas. However, the question is: why was possession left out?

My next question would be why drug paraphernalia is being left out to be possessed

in these areas, particularly when a large concern, by parents especially, is finding

uncapped needles, for example, in areas for families — picnic areas, parks and playgrounds.

Why was it decided that this bill would focus only on the consumption and not also

address one of those other symptoms of drug use in public areas, which is a significant

concern to business owners, and to prohibit even having drug paraphernalia, so that

we can start addressing those items being left behind? Why did the government choose

not to address either the possession, since drugs may inadvertently be left behind,

or even the paraphernalia? Why was that not addressed by this government?

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

Again, I'll just come back to…. In the development of this bill, it was very much

in terms of what we're hearing from local government, what it is that they were looking

for, what police were telling us they were looking for, what public health was telling

us they were concerned about and how things should work.

This bill is not about possession. It is about public drug use. That is the focus

of what we were hearing about. Inappropriate places that local government identified

and that we've specified in the bill.

E. Sturko: Entrances to businesses that the public doesn't use as an entrance. For example, a

rear entrance that might be a back door used for deliveries. Are these captured under

subsection (1) and sub (d)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes, they are.

E. Sturko: Okay. For subsection (1), para (e), can the minister provide a definition for "public

transit bus stop"? I'm going to be asking…. Does it actually…? What about private

shuttle bus stops or taxi stops? Are these also included within this definition?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to clarify for the member. What she asked in the previous question is

actually captured under 3(1)(c)(ii).

[5:25 p.m.]

In answer to the question, it was public transit bus stops. That's the area that was

identified as a concern because of the number of kids that gather at bus stops, for

example.

E. Sturko: Thank you for the response.

What are the expectations for enforcement regarding these areas, specifically in front

of businesses or behind businesses? Are there any expectations for owners and managers

to take reasonable steps to prevent people from consuming illegal substances within

the six-metre buffer zone, as there are with smoking and vaping?

For example, the government website on tobacco and vapour-free places…. Under the

"Responsibilities of managers or owners to enforce the buffer zone," it states:

"Owners and managers are required to take reasonable steps to prevent people from

smoking/vaping within the six-metre buffer zone on their property. They are not required

to enforce the law on public property, such as sidewalks, unless the person is within

the control of the owner, such as a customer or patron, or is their employee. For

example, if you place a bench at the doorway to your store, you must make sure people

do not use tobacco or vapour products while sitting there."

Another area includes lessees, under those responsible.

Will there be any responsibility on business owners to be the ones managing the situation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer is