Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Monday, May 30, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 215

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements

West End–Coal Harbour Community Policing Centre

S. Chandra Herbert

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Fundraising runs by Al Ferraby

G. Lore

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

D. Coulter

Children and youth in care

K. Kirkpatrick

P. Alexis

Removal of discriminatory language from land titles

J. Sturdy

Lung transplant team and experience of MLA’s brother

R. Leonard

Kamloops NorthPaws baseball team

P. Milobar

Oral Questions

Government priorities and museum replacement project

K. Falcon

Hon. A. Dix

T. Stone

Hon. M. Mark

Staffing shortages and action on issues in health care system

S. Furstenau

Hon. A. Dix

Issues in health care system and museum replacement project

S. Bond

Hon. A. Dix

Tabling Documents

Office of the Merit Commissioner, annual report, 2021-22

Elections B.C., report of the Chief Electoral Officer on recommendations for legislative change, May 2022

Reports from Committees

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders

and Private Bills Committee, report on Bill Pr401, May 2022

M. Dykeman

Petitions

K. Kirkpatrick

Orders of the Day

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Attorney General (continued)

M. de Jong

Hon. D. Eby

T. Wat

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of Supply

Estimates: Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure (continued)

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Fleming

B. Stewart

B. Banman

I. Paton

G. Kyllo

MONDAY, MAY 30, 2022

The House met at 1:34 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

L. Doerkson: I’m honoured to welcome the love of my life, Shelley Wiese, who is up

in the gallery today. She’s joined by her sister, Shannon Love. She is the

absolute best sister-in-law you could have. Separately, these women are

strong and powerful, but together, they are a heck of a force. I’m glad that

they are usually on my side. Would you all please welcome both of them,

Shannon and Shelley, to the chamber today.

[1:35 p.m.]

N. Sharma: I would like to welcome one of my constituents, Debbie Simpson, here

today. She’s here today in honour of Cystic Fibrosis Awareness Month, which

has taken place each May since 2020. CF is a progressive genetic disease

that causes a long-lasting lung infection and limited ability to

breathe.

Debbie is the regional advocate for Cystic Fibrosis Canada and has a

son named Liam with CF. I want to thank Debbie for her advocacy for

PharmaCare to cover Orkambi and other medications that have improved Liam’s

quality of life.

Please welcome Debbie.

R. Singh: In the House today, we have Dr. Jasjit Singh. He’s an associate

professor at the University of Leeds, and he’s in Victoria. He’s going to

deliver some talks at UVic on being sick in the digital world. He’s also

joined by Jindi Singh, who is with Khalsa Aid Canada. Would the House please

make both of them very welcome.

D. Coulter: It’s not often that I get constituents coming to the House. So I’m

pleased to welcome today two classes from Sardis Secondary. They’re grade

11s and 12s. One class is for social studies French immersion; the other

class is a politics class. I’ll be speaking to them both this Friday. Would

everyone in the House please welcome them.

H. Sandhu: Today I have two introductions to make. One is the birthday wish, and

the second one is the introduction.

My husband, Baljit Singh Sandhu, is celebrating his birthday today. We

both are workaholics, and we barely see each other, not only since I took

this role, even prior, with our roles in health care and shift work. One of

us had to stay home for the kids and whatnot. I just want to also thank him

for being so supportive with this work and the work I have done previously.

I hope he’s still supportive after realizing that he has to go through my

CAs to book our occasional lunch meetings. He had to do it,

actually.

I want to thank him for all of his ongoing support.

Would the House please join me and wish Baljit a very happy birthday

today.

The second introduction is…. I have very special guests in the gallery

today joining us from not only B.C. but also from other parts of the

country. Today we have in the gallery Arshpreet Singh, Azadbir Singh and

Vikramjit Singh from Surrey; Karanbir Singh and Gagandeep Singh joining us

from Edmonton; Sandeep Singh from Kelowna; Jobanpreet Singh Handa, Tanveer

Singh Handa and Anmol Singh from Winnipeg.

They’re all celebrating their grade 12 friends reunion. They decided

to celebrate in Victoria and to watch the question period in the

gallery.

Would the House please join me to show a warm welcome to all my guests

today.

Hon. M. Dean: Today here in the precinct is a resident of Esquimalt-Metchosin.

Millie Schulz is here.

I just want to say a big hello to Millie. Congratulations on all of

your advocacy. I really appreciated meeting with you not so long ago, and I

hope you have a great time here on the precinct.

Would everybody please make them very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I’m so delighted to introduce a group of people here in the gallery

today, Dr. Lisa Gunderson and students of the BYE, the Black Youth

Empowerment program, which is a youth-led non-profit that works to create

awareness about the impacts of race-based issues in schools.

Dr. Gunderson, a dear friend of mine, is a PhD in clinical psychology

from the University of Southern California and owner and founder of One Love

Consulting, providing anti-Black and anti-racism equity services.

With her is Ayeisha Hayes-Troree, a grade 12 student at Spectrum

Community School who is currently involved in the education on sexual

assault and violence project. Solange Lavey-Dorsenville and Samara Delinski

are both grade 10 students and members of the Black Youth Empowerment from

the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre’s Project Respect.

[1:40 p.m.]

All of these students were honoured with a Havey youth leadership

award for community involvement, initiative and inspiration for Black youth

on April 30. And Solange and Samara just hosted 84 teachers for a pro-D day

that they organized themselves.

Would the House please join me in making our guests most

welcome.

Statements

WEST END–COAL HARBOUR

COMMUNITY POLICING

CENTRE

S. Chandra Herbert: I’d like to introduce the House to the West End–Coal Harbour

Community Policing Centre, members of, who are celebrating their 25th

anniversary. It started as the Davie Street Community Policing Centre.

It’s at the Davie Village, I should say, and it has expanded to include

all the West End and Coal Harbour.

Remarkably, Peter Symons was there from the beginning. For 25

years, he’s been serving as a volunteer to keep our community safe. Of

course, we have Shelley and Aleya there, holding down the fort now.

They’re moving offices to a few doors down. But with 130 volunteers, we

know they’ll be there to serve us for at least 25 more years.

They do such a great job, and we’re honoured to have them in our

community.

Introductions by Members

B. Stewart: In the precinct, we have Paul Vogt. He’s the president and CEO of the

College of the Rockies here. He just hosted us a great lunch at lunchtime,

so thank him for that. The College of the Rockies is headquartered in

Cranbrook, but there are campuses throughout the Kootenays. It’s one of the

best colleges in the province and one of the best international programs in

the world, there. Would the House please welcome Paul Vogt.

P. Milobar: I have two sets of introductions today.

The first. We have with us Jennifer Chalmers, who is no stranger to

this building. She is a longtime staffer who, most recently, decided to take

on some other challenges and adventures in her life. She’s here today with

her two aunties that are visiting the Legislature. Loretta Kohlman is

visiting us from Vernon, and Ann Kohlman is visiting us from Beaumont,

Alberta. Would the House please make them feel welcome.

The other introduction. This young lady was insistent that I introduce

her six weeks earlier than I first thought I would. On May 24, as my

daughter Kayleigh was at work, feeling that she might have had Braxton Hicks

contractions…. She’s not due until the first week of July. After three or

four hours at school, the school she teaches in at Merritt, they decided

maybe she should head back to Kamloops to see what was going on.

About ten minutes outside of Merritt, she discovered it was full-on

labour and kept driving herself for another 45 minutes to get to the

hospital, where a couple hours later she brought into this world my first

grandchild, Zoey May Janowsky — a robust 4 pounds 11 ounces, I might add.

Baby and mom are doing very well.

If the House would please congratulate my daughter Kayleigh and her

husband, Max Janowsky, on the birth of their first child.

M. Elmore: I’m really happy to welcome to the House today my godson, who came in

from Toronto, Antonio Alcantara Tangonan, and he’s here with his partner,

Sabrina Mangiapane. He was only three years old when he moved from Vancouver

to Toronto. They both graduated. They each have two degrees. Tony has got a

bachelor of science and also a law degree. Sabrina has a bachelor of arts in

week, Tony the following month. I was great friends with their parents,

Tessi and Rojelio, and we organized, back in the day, advocating for rights

for caregivers and migrant workers.

I’m really pleased to welcome them here, and I ask everybody to please

give them a very warm welcome.

Tributes

FUNDRAISING RUNS BY AL FERRABY

G. Lore: Yesterday was the Oak Bay Half Marathon. While I thoroughly

enjoyed a run around the Minister of Indigenous Relations and

Reconciliation’s community, I wanted to take the opportunity to give a

quick shout-out to CFAX Radio host Al Ferraby, who has been collecting

$21 for his 21 kilometres for seven half marathons now and, after

yesterday’s total, has raised about a quarter of a million dollars for

CFAX Santas Anonymous in our community, just by asking the community to

support him on his runs. It’s just a huge accomplishment.

[1:45 p.m.]

Statements

(Standing Order 25B)

FOR PERSONS WITH

DISABILITIES

D. Coulter: Today I’m honoured to acknowledge May 29 to June 4 as

AccessAbility Week.

When government passed the Accessible B.C. Act almost a year ago,

we committed to helping people with disabilities live with dignity by

The act gives us the framework that establishes accountability from

government and allows us, with the guidance of the provincial

address barriers in a range of areas.

Because people living with disabilities have a diverse range of

experiences, ideas and abilities, their voices are important and should

be heard as government works to shape the policies and regulations that

impact their day-to-day lives. AccessAbility Week is an opportunity for

all of us to recognize the diversity and celebrate the many ways that

people living with disabilities in British Columbia contribute to our

workplaces, communities and lives. It’s a chance to thank people with

disabilities, their advocates and organizations that consistently go

above and beyond to raise awareness about what each of us can do to make

our province more inclusive.

Building a more accessible and inclusive B.C. isn’t just a

government responsibility. It’s the way to a better future for everyone,

because when we remove unnecessary barriers, we create the space for

make sure that all of us have a future filled with

possibilities.

People with disabilities have always led the way when it comes to

them for guidance, strength and tenacity as we work to continue to seek

their voices, to identify, remove and prevent barriers to the full and

equal participation of people with disabilities in B.C.

I would like to invite all members to join me and everyone in

British Columbia to recognize May 29 to June 4 as AccessAbility Week as

we work together to achieve a barrier-free B.C.

CHILDREN AND YOUTH IN CARE

K. Kirkpatrick: Security, community, consistency, unconditional love, culture —

these are things that young people who have been in care have often

missed. Parental modelling, long-term relationships — these are all

things that impact a young person as they move into adulthood and

throughout their life.

In the media, we hear sad stories, the stories of struggle and the

stories of tragedy, but there is so much more to youth in care. They can

go on and do amazing things. Today they are amazing and resilient and

creative. We need to think about all the great things that they

do.

Today marks the kickoff of the B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week.

We celebrate youth in care for being awesome. I’d like to highlight the

Federation of B.C. Youth in Care Networks, which is a youth-driven,

peer-based provincial non-profit organization dedicated to improving the

lives of young people in care and from care between the ages of 14 and

24. This group was created by a group of young people who had been in

care in 1993 as they recognized their special and unique needs. These

young people need to have arms wrapped around them and need to be

supported as they go through their unique journeys.

Tonight starting at 6 p.m., the Federation of B.C. Youth in Care

Networks will be hosting an online event, where you can discover the

amazing history of B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week and watch as they

honour this year’s recognition award recipients. To register, go to

their website. Got to do that quickly, because it’s tonight. You’ll be

inspired by the awesomeness of children and youth in care and alumni of

care, and you’ll have an opportunity to hear from them.

If you aren’t or you weren’t a kid in care, you can still be an

ally and support this group. You can also consider being an awesome

foster parent or a guardian.

Thank you very much, and here’s to celebrating all the amazing

children who have been in care and are awesome.

P. Alexis: Today I want to acknowledge that I’m speaking to you from the

Lək̓ʷəŋin̓əŋ people, the Songhees and Esquimalt First

Nations.

[1:50 p.m.]

Today I, too, would like to highlight B.C. Child and Youth in Care

Week for the members, which begins today. This week is an opportunity to

recognize the strengths, accomplishments and resiliency of children and

youth in and from care and to help break the stigma around being a

foster child. This week also acts as a reminder that our role is to

listen, respect and support children and youth from care as they

transition to adulthood.

I was so pleased when, in March, we announced a new, first-ever,

comprehensive system of supports for youth and young adults

transitioning from care to adulthood. These supports include an

indefinite extension to emergency housing measures, allowing young

adults to stay in their homes until the age of 21 or until they’re ready

to move out.

This new system will also provide better income supports,

including a new no-limit earnings exemption, housing options and

improved health and life skills supports, continuing for youth

transitioning from care until the age of 27.

For years, this demographic has been underserved, which has

negatively impacted their lives. The changes we’ve made in policy will

help ensure that these children have the best chance at success as they

enter adulthood. We stand with children and youth in and from care, and

I encourage everyone to join a virtual B.C. Child and Youth in Care Week

event or to attend a celebration event in their constituency.

To all children and youth in and from care, we’re here for you, we

will continue to support you, and we wish you a wonderful Child and

Youth in Care Week.

REMOVAL OF DISCRIMINATORY

LANGUAGE FROM LAND

TITLES

J. Sturdy: An unknown number of British Columbia land titles, some authored

as recently as the 1960s, include covenants barring people of colour

from living in certain neighbourhoods or communities. An example of such

a racist land covenant was recently highlighted by a constituent of West

Vancouver–Capilano. Covenant 7 of Michele Tung’s land title states: “No

person of the African or Asiatic race or of African or Asiatic descent,

except servants of the occupier of the premises in residence, shall

reside or be allowed to remain on the premises.”

While these types of discriminatory covenants have technically

been voided or unenforceable since 1978, when

section 222 was added to

the Land Title Act, the language of the covenants remains on the public

record. Under the Torrens system of land registration used in British

Columbia, the title is attached to the land and not the original

signatories. Currently land titles must include an unabridged record of

land dealings since the title’s origin. The result is that edits to

titles are limited to a strikethrough on racist covenants, as the law

dictates that the text of the land title cannot be erased or made

illegible.

However, the continued existence of these covenants on title

serves as a perennial reminder to people of colour of how they would at

one time have been prohibited from living in their current homes.

Constituents of West Vancouver have been calling for action to remove

discriminatory language from land titles over the past three weeks. A

petition on the issue garnered over 3,500 signatures in a short period

of time, and that petition will be tabled later today by my colleague

from West Vancouver–Capilano.

The scope of the problem across the province is not well

documented. SFU researchers have found an artificial intelligence

shortcut to scan, for discriminatory language, the vast volumes of often

analog-only records.

An amendment to the provincial land title system will be required

to remove the language, and the requisite resource must be allocated to

action change to ensure that we resolve but not forget these historic

events.

LUNG TRANSPLANT TEAM

AND EXPERIENCE OF MLA’S

BROTHER

R. Leonard: On March 16, thanks to an organ donator and the incredibly

talented lung transplant team at Vancouver General Hospital, my brother,

Cory Leonard, received the amazing gift of new lungs.

[1:55 p.m.]

Here in B.C., we’re fortunate to have the expertise of thoracic

surgeon and lung transplant specialist Dr. John Yee and his surgical

team, who have an unblemished track record of successful transplants,

and they’re tag-teaming to a strong future, thanks to their teaching

program.

As a patient, having a positive attitude has been crucial on

Cory’s journey to good health. It’s shored up by his unwavering faith

and confidence in the expertise of the doctors, nurses, respiratory

therapists and all the other members of the team.

My brother has had a number of complications following his initial

surgery. On day 11 in the ICU, he was taken off the life-saving ECMO

machine. As the doctor prepared for the procedure, doctors and nurses

gathered around until the whole floor was watching. When it was

successfully removed, relief and elation filled the air. It was a real

reflection of the deep commitment and connection each member of the team

has to the success of their patients. They certainly deserve the relief

that the therapeutic visiting Bernese mountain dog brings.

My brother’s wife, Mariana Bralic, is a good advocate for her

husband. She exemplifies the benefits of calm, clear and timely

communications as she navigates the system well. For those who are hard

of hearing, as she is, know that it can be a real benefit. She was able

to easily lip-read when Cory couldn’t speak out loud.

Dr. Roland Nador, Cory’s respiratory specialist, has been a

constant. He has been key to keeping my brother upbeat and feeling

included in his recovery. My daughter, Chelsea Eby, has also been a

great local support to her uncle. The generosity of organ donation

started him on this path to a fuller life, and B.C.s expert transplant

team has and continues to give hope and breath.

A great big thank-you to all of them.

KAMLOOPS NORTHPAWS BASEBALL TEAM

P. Milobar: Tomorrow evening will be another exciting

chapter in the sporting

history of Kamloops. Although many in this chamber are probably thinking

I’m talking about the Kamloops Blazers and game 7 in the western

conference final — the last B.C. team surviving, I might add — in

Seattle, it is not the Blazers that I am talking about.

Instead, as only Canada’s tournament capital could do in Kamloops,

we have another exciting event that has been scheduled for quite some

time and delayed, because of COVID, for a year. Tomorrow night will be

the inaugural game for our new West Coast League baseball team, the

Kamloops NorthPaws, playing out of Norbrock Stadium in my riding. It’s

the jewel of Kamloops sports facilities, but it has also been referred

to as what would be considered one of the better triple-A parks in North

America as well.

We’re looking forward to a very exciting season of the NorthPaws.

We know that ticket sales have been going very well. We hope the fans

will be able to find their way to both events tomorrow, but then

certainly in the coming days, as it’s a three-game homestand to start

off their season. They’re joined by the Kelowna Falcons and the Nanaimo

Night Owls as well, of course in a league that the Victoria HarbourCats

have been a part of for quite some time. It’s great to see that Victoria

will still have a stadium to play in and not a dog park. I’ll just throw

that out there, as a baseball fan.

The NorthPaws have been a long time coming. The ownership group

had been trying for several years to pull together a team in Kamloops.

It’s great to see their years of hard work, dedication and not walking

away. Their dream of bringing forward high-level, essentially U.S.

division 1–level calibre baseball to Kamloops and the surrounding region

is going ahead.

My understanding is the four B.C. teams, the mayors have a joint

cup that they will now be playing for this year. We look forward to

seeing the great competition between the four B.C. cities, as well as

everyone that’s in the league.

Oral Questions

GOVERNMENT PRIORITIES

AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

K. Falcon: Over the weekend, we saw emergency rooms in Clearwater, Chetwynd

and Port McNeill closing amid an ongoing crisis in health care and

chronic staffing shortages that are plaguing our province under this NDP

government. This is happening dozens of times, in communities right

across the province, as a result of the incompetence of this

government.

In spite of this crisis in health care, last week the NDP

proceeded with what only can be described as a total joke of a business

case, trying to justify this Premier’s billion-dollar vanity museum

project. All the critical information, a third of the pages, was blacked

out. They censored the risk assessment, the value-for-money analysis,

even the construction costs.

[2:00 p.m.]

Now, why is this important? Well, because part of this

billion-dollar boondoggle includes a $225 million archives and

collections building, currently under construction in Colwood, that’s

already a year behind

schedule and almost 30 percent over budget,

putting this entire boondoggle on track to be the most expensive museum

in North American history.

My question to the Premier is: can the Premier not see the

absurdity of plunging forward with this billion-dollar vanity museum

project at a time when emergency rooms are shutting down and one out of

five British Columbians cannot even access a family

physician?

Hon. A. Dix: This morning, of course, the Premier was in Burnaby, where he

broke ground on the new Burnaby hospital redevelopment — $1.3 billion

and a plan that had been delayed year unto year unto year under the

previous government.

As members of this House know, in 2002, the previous government

announced its first business plan for the St. Paul’s Hospital, and they

were at pre-business plan stage in 2017 — a hospital which had serious,

to say the least, seismic issues. We’re proceeding with that plan and

building that hospital.

We’re proceeding with a second hospital in Surrey. I know the

Leader of the Opposition is opposed. We’re proceeding with the Lions

Gate hospital project, a project with which the Leader of the Opposition

is no doubt familiar. We’re proceeding in Richmond. We’re proceeding in

Dawson Creek. We’re proceeding in Terrace. We’re proceeding in Prince

George. We’re proceeding in Quesnel. We’re proceeding in Fort St. James.

Yes, indeed, we are. We’re proceeding in Williams Lake and in

Cowichan.

What it says is that the priority of this government, the

unprecedented priority this government has given to hospital capital

projects is without equal and picks up projects that were delayed year

unto year unto year under the previous government.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, supplemental.

K. Falcon: What they’re proceeding with is what they’re really good at: more

announcements. Announcements, announcements, announcements — everything

but actual results.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: In fact, for the benefit of the Health Minister, I have an

announcement on this hospital from 2019. Actually, according to that

announcement, it was supposed to be under construction last year.

Instead, like all their projects, it’s four years behind

schedule.

Look, British Columbians need help today — not empty rhetoric; not

empty health care facilities, which the one they’re building will be if

they keep proceeding the way they’re going; and certainly not the

Premier’s poorly-thought-out vanity project that will take nearly a

decade. Closing this museum in September makes absolutely no sense when

design work doesn’t even begin for two years and construction is at

least four years away — probably longer, knowing these

characters.

The harm to tourism, by their own reckoning, is over $200 million

a year and 531 lost jobs every year for eight years. Now, I oversaw the

construction of a project called the Canada Line in less time. That was

one of the largest…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Members, order.

[2:05 p.m.]

K. Falcon: …infrastructure projects in the history of the province of British

Columbia. I would remind the members opposite that that included 16

stations, two bridges and over 19 kilometres of tunnel.

I have a simple question for the Premier. Why will his

billion-dollar boondoggle take nearly a decade, and why is the Premier

in a rush to shut down a perfectly good, operating museum that could

help the tourism sector today and in the years to come?

Hon. A. Dix: We know, for example, that the city of Surrey has needed a second

hospital for years and years. We know the Leader of the Opposition

opposes a second hospital in Surrey, and he did more than that. Land was

purchased in Surrey for a second hospital. Who sold the land? He did. He

was so against a second hospital for the people of Surrey that he tried

to deny it for eternity.

Fortunately…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Order.

Hon. A. Dix: …there’s a different government. They sell the land; we build the

hospitals.

Mr. Speaker: Leader of the Official Opposition, second supplemental.

K. Falcon: A fascinating diversion, considering my question was for the

Premier or at least the minister responsible for the file. But you know,

I know that Minister of Health loves taking walks down memory lane. I

just will simply remind him. He won’t like this; they never

do.

They built a 19-storey tower — VGH tower, some might remember — in

the ’90s. It sat empty for ten years because there weren’t any workers

to fill it. That’s the problem. They don’t know how to manage a system.

They don’t know how to get big things done.

But my question is actually to the Premier or to the

minister.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

K. Falcon: But to the Premier, the minister responsible. British

Columbians….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question.

K. Falcon: British Columbians are looking for help today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. Order.

Please continue.

K. Falcon: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Projects like the Canada Line, for example, have real business

plans. The Premier’s vanity museum project is, of course, just the

latest in a series of really terrible NDP capital decisions. Now, as I

mentioned, the archives building is already almost 30 percent over

budget and a year behind

schedule and, at $225 million, is on track to

be the most expensive archives building in North America, for

certain.

But just next door in Alberta, interestingly, they’re doing a full

renovation….

Interjections.

K. Falcon: No, you’ll like this. You’ll like this, Members.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

K. Falcon: Just next door in Alberta, they’re doing a full renovation of the

Glenbow Museum. Like our museum, it’s identical in size, 250,000 square

feet, and more than half a century old. It also needs renovation,

asbestos removal, structural upgrades, modernization of exhibits and, of

course, the protection of its archives. It’s near identical in size and

scope, and they’re doing it all for $120 million in less than half the

time it will take the NDP to go ahead with this billion-dollar

boondoggle.

My question to the Premier is this. Why is the Premier moving

forward with a totally flawed decision to tear down a perfectly good

building, spend a billion dollars on a project that nobody wants and

nobody asked for, at a time when British Columbians cannot get access to

a family doctor and when their local emergency departments are closing

down every other day?

Mr. Speaker: Minister of Health.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Interjections.

[Mr. Speaker rose.]

Mr. Speaker: Members are to come to order now.

Members, we are not going to proceed until we have quiet. A

minister can only start talking when the minister is

recognized.

[Mr. Speaker resumed his seat.]

Minister of Health.

[2:10 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: Thank you very much, hon. Chair.

I’m very, very surprised to hear the Leader of the Opposition talk

about primary care. He will recall his plan. He will recall his plan. He

announced it in 2010. He said: “Everyone will have a family doctor by

2015.” The plan collapsed within a few years. He promised

160…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …integrated primary care community plans. He delivered

zero.

Hon. Speaker, it’s possible….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Please continue.

Hon. A. Dix: It’s possible that someone will tie zero for 160, but no one will

ever beat it. No one will ever beat it.

What we are delivering on is action now — 602 new nursing

positions in B.C., the largest family residency program in Canada, 1,000

people working at primary care networks. In other words, doing the work.

Not just making announcements but doing the work required, working with

our family practice doctors, with our nurses, with our nurse

practitioners and with our communities to bring improvements and to

address the challenges facing primary care.

That’s how you get things done, hon. Speaker. It’s not by shouting

loud and pretending about the past. It’s taking action, and that’s what

we’re doing.

T. Stone: Perhaps we’ll try again here to ask a question to and maybe get an

answer from the minister responsible for this $1 billion vanity museum

project.

I’ll tell you this much, Mr. Speaker. No one believes the

explanations and the excuses about this $1 billion vanity museum

project. Even the heavily redacted business case that was released

recently says on page 3 of appendix F that the museum is in good

condition.

Let’s take another look at the tale of two similar museum

revitalization projects. You’ve got the Glenbow Museum in Calgary and

the Royal B.C. Museum here in Victoria. Both are 250,000 square feet.

Both are about 50 years in vintage. They both need upgrades and

renovations and asbestos removal. They both need enhanced protection of

their collections. They both need modernization of their

exhibits.

Here are the key differences. One of those museums, the one here

in Victoria, is going to cost $1 billion and take eight-plus years —

probably ten years under this government, based on their track record.

Whereas the project that’s very similar in Calgary is going to cost

taxpayers $120 million, and it’s going to be built in four

years.

How can the Premier spend a billion dollars on a vanity museum

project when a similar museum revitalization project right next door in

Alberta is being built for a fraction of the cost, in a fraction of the

time?

Hon. M. Mark: First of all, it’s always a bit rich listening to the B.C.

Liberals take an interest in protecting museums when they did nothing,

going back to 2006. They knew all along that there were seismic risks to

the people’s museum, the building that carries seven million of our

artifacts, 27 kilometres worth of our archives. They were prepared to

take the risk to have it wiped out.

That was a choice that they made then. When the leader flew in

here with his commitment to cut this project, the first thing that he

would do is to take the risk to wipe out our history.

I want them to eat a few of their words. What did Angela Williams,

the former RBCM chief operating officer, say? She served the museum

between 2003, when they were on this side, up until 2018, when they were

on this side.

[2:15 p.m.]

This is what she had to say. She said: “On the work of the

redevelopment of the Royal B.C. Museum, which began in 2011, the Liberal

government of the day knew what we were doing. They directed them to do

it, so I find it a bit disheartening now that the current Liberal

opposition appears not to remember that.”

You know what’s even worse, hon. Speaker? It’s how insulting their

words are to the public service who have worked for a decade and a half

to do the work to demonstrate….

They are politicizing this issue. It’s an insult to the public

service…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. M. Mark: …who did the work over a decade and a half, to tell British

Columbians, through the business case that we came forward with in full

transparency…. I know the members opposite have an allergic reaction to

transparency. But we’re going to be committed to this project because

it’s the right thing to do.

Mr. Speaker: Opposition House Leader, supplemental.

T. Stone: You know whose insult that is — the public of British Columbia.

They’re going to be asked to spend a billion dollars.

As I said a moment ago, nobody believes this minister. Nobody

believes the government when it comes to this project. All the excuses

in the world — no one believes it. Treasures for Generations —

2018, a $150 million upgrade of the existing building. That made sense

in 2018.

The minister’s mandate letters in 2019, 2020, 2021 all refer to a

modernization of the existing museum at the existing location, but

suddenly, now, the entire building needs to be taken down and a gaping

hole left in downtown Victoria.

The minister talks about the seismic concerns. Fair enough, but

that’s not what it actually says in her own business case. As I said, in

the appendix it refers to this building being in good condition. Lastly,

we prioritize the safety over children when it comes to seismic

upgrades. Schools should be done before this building.

At a time when our health care system….

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, let’s hear the question.

Continue.

T. Stone: At a time when our health care system is massively understaffed,

at a time when British Columbians are struggling to access the primary

care that they need — one in five don’t have a doctor — and at a time

when British Columbians are struggling to make ends meet, how can this

government continue to press forward, continue to double down on a $1

billion vanity museum project, which no one in this province asked for

and no one in this province wants?

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Minister.

Hon. M. Mark: I believe I’ve illustrated the value of the museum. It houses the

collection…. They can laugh at what’s behind the walls of those museums,

but that is our collective history. Tell all the people in these

chambers — seven million artifacts…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mark: …and 27 kilometres worth of archives behind those buildings. Two

floors are below sea level. They don’t mind taking the risk of wiping

that out.

We can’t commit or move forward on our commitment to repatriation

because of the way the building is structured. We can’t return poles.

There’s a lot of work that we need to do to make the building safe. But

risks.

To the member opposite, 135,000 kids go to that museum every year,

and 73,000 visit the IMAX.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. M. Mark: For all of those reasons, that is the reason our government is

moving forward to modernize the Royal B.C. Museum, to bring it into the

21st century, to be built with mass timber, to support jobs, to support

our clean and green economy. There are a number of reasons why this is

the right thing to do.

STAFFING SHORTAGES AND ACTION

ON ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE

SYSTEM

S. Furstenau: It would be cold comfort for anybody from the public tuning in to

see if there were any solutions to the overlapping crises that people

are facing in B.C. today. Instead, we are getting a government that

loves nothing more than blaming others or patting themselves on the back

for recycled capital announcements when previously announced ones sit

empty with no staff.

We have child care centres that have no CEs. We have schools

scrambling for teachers and EAs, and our crumbling health care system

lacks the doctors and nurses to do the actual care that people need. In

Kamloops, people are being offered an appointment at an urgent and

primary care centre 14 days from now.

[2:20 p.m.]

Emergency departments in Chetwynd, Clearwater and Port McNeill

were closed this weekend due to staff shortages. And where emergency

departments were open, people could expect five-, six-, seven-,

eight-hour waits. Our provincial health care system is showing signs of

collapse, and the government’s ribbon cutting and gaslighting are not

helping. Their own Premier today admits…. He said today that the system

is teetering.

My question is to the Premier. We’ve seen and heard this

government point everywhere else for the problems that we’re facing with

our health care system. The Premier said he needed a majority to get

politics out of the way. When is he going to demonstrate the leadership

that he promised British Columbians?

Hon. A. Dix: With respect to the challenges facing our health care system, as

we deal with two public health emergencies and continue to do so — which

have a significant effect, as everyone knows, on staffing and health

care — last week about 16,000 people in our health care system were off

sick. That is significantly higher than in ordinary periods because of

COVID-19.

People do not go to work sick. This is an important principle that

puts pressure on our system. It’s why we have gone — for example, in

Interior Health, as the member refers to — from about 6 percent, in that

number, to about 11 percent, which is a massive increase, on the

ground.

Actions are taken to ensure that people are kept safe in

communities, that our health care facilities are able to provide the

care they need. And then facilities that have a small number of staff

people, where one or two people can be critical to maintaining the

standard of care…. If those people are away, we make changes as a result

of that.

The actions that the government has taken in all of these areas

are substantive. What happened today was the beginning of construction

of the Burnaby Hospital project — a hospital that was built in 1954 and

has served us very well. That’s an important step. It’s an important

step in recruiting people.

We’ve led Canada since 2017 in the growth in registered nurses.

Admittedly, we were starting from a low base. We’ve led Canada, and

we’ve just added 602 spaces. We made it easier for internationally

educated nurses to work in our health care system. We’re adding health

sciences professionals and physicians around the province to help

people.

We’re seeing, in a very challenging time, our health care system

responding in important ways, including in April — some of the weeks of

surgeries which were the highest in the history of the B.C. health care

system, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic. These are significant

steps, they’re substantive steps, and we continue to take substantive

steps every single day.

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

S. Furstenau: Two public health emergencies, indeed, and five years into this

government, and we’re not seeing the solutions that are being presented

to them put into place. The coroners death panel review made it very

clear we need a safe supply. You want to reduce the public emergency of

the toxic drug poisoning in this province? It starts with safe

supply.

You want to look at the illness that we’re seeing? It would be

really nice to have some transparency about how much COVID is in this

province and why it is that a government that is mostly wearing masks

right now isn’t encouraging the public to do the same.

We’re seeing a government that struggles to manage the operational

side of governing, unlike anything we have seen. The work only begins

with the ribbon cutting, which this government likes to do over and over

again. What is needed are working conditions for front-line staff that

recognize the value of those people and the critical services that they

are providing to British Columbians.

The Premier likes to tout the difference between capital and

operational budgets, and yet the Minister of Health thinks that the way

to make people want to work in our health care system is to “attract

them to the public health care system by building extraordinary new

facilities.” Doctors and nurses want to be valued for the work that they

do and the services that they provide.

My question is to the Premier. Does he believe that the

operational budgets in this province are sufficient to meet the basic

needs of British Columbians?

[2:25 p.m.]

Hon. A. Dix: When you talk about working conditions for health care workers,

getting rid of Bill 29, getting rid of Bill 94…. When we brought in a

single-site order in long-term care, we lifted up salaries by $165

million. That’s how much people were working under. We have brought and

are bringing contracts back into the public health care system. People

who worked there for decades, as a result of actions taken in the past,

who didn’t even have a pension, worked in public health care…. That is

changing, and we are changing it.

To be clear, we need operating support, and we are delivering in

that area. We need capital projects, and when I talk to doctors and

nurses in Cowichan, they want a new hospital there. You better believe

it, and I do, too.

ISSUES IN HEALTH CARE SYSTEM

AND MUSEUM REPLACEMENT

PROJECT

S. Bond: The minister can stand up and raise his voice all he wants in this

Legislature. The Premier of British Columbia today…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, let’s hear the question, please.

Continue.

S. Bond: …admitted that the health care system in this province is

teetering. In fact, he is wrong. It is in full-fledged crisis mode. And

what do British Columbians get offended about, to the Minister of

Tourism? They get offended by the fact that every single day in this

Legislature and outside it, they listen to this government giving excuse

after excuse after excuse, while ERs are closing in British Columbia.

That may not matter to these members, but it matters to British

Columbians.

It also matters that we have exhausted nurses and doctors who are

choosing to leave the system. So the minister can tout all the numbers

he wants. The reality in British Columbia is this. We have a health care

crisis. And not one single NDP MLA has the courage to stand up and say,

“We should not proceed with a billion-dollar boondoggle,” and that is

shame on every one of them.

It is time for the Premier to stand up, do the right thing today

and recognize that while British Columbians can’t get a family doctor,

moving ahead with a billion-dollar boondoggle is unacceptable. Will he

today withdraw the project and invest the money in health care, where it

should be invested?

Hon. A. Dix: That is exactly what we are doing in British Columbia. If you look

at investing in health care, 190,699 people in our health care system in

2020, and 222,921 today.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.

Hon. A. Dix: The Leader of the Opposition is so out of touch with our health

care system. He doesn’t realize. That’s care aides. That’s health

sciences professionals. That’s nurses. That’s doctors. That’s ambulance

paramedics. That’s who that is.

The Leader of the Opposition calls nurses bureaucrats. That’s what

he does. Well, I don’t agree with that. We need substance…

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Hon. A. Dix: …and action, and that is precisely what we are providing — 602 new

nursing seats. More new nurses, leading Canada in registered nurses. In

terms of surgeries and orthopedic wait time, all results, No. 8; and No.

1 in orthopedic surgeries.

The Premier today, again, made the case on behalf of British

Columbians and all of Canadians for increases in the Canada health

transfer. He made that case.

Interjections.

Mr. Speaker: Members.

Member for Kamloops–North Thompson will come to order.

Hon. A. Dix: He made that case because it is in everybody’s interest for the

federal government to also be part of the solution in this country.

That’s why he made that case.

[2:30 p.m.]

It used to be that the B.C. Liberal Party fought for an increase

in the Canada health transfer — no more. But we’re going to continue to

fight on behalf of British Columbians and Canadians to support our

public health care system.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

Mr. Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the 2021-22 annual report of the

Office of the Merit Commissioner and the Report of the Chief Electoral

Officer on Recommendations for Legislative Change .

Reports from Committees

PARLIAMENTARY REFORM, ETHICAL

CONDUCT, STANDING ORDERS

AND

PRIVATE BILLS COMMITTEE

M. Dykeman: I have the honour to present the report of the Select Standing

Committee on Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and

Private Bills on Bill Pr401, Sea to Sky University Amendment Act,

I move that the report be taken as read and received.

Motion approved.

M. Dykeman: I ask leave of the House to move a motion to adopt the

report.

Leave granted.

M. Dykeman: In moving adoption of the report, I would like to make some brief

comments.

At the time of incorporation, Quest University, formerly known as

Sea to Sky University, owned the property, which it uses for educational

purposes. But today, the university leases the property. Bill Pr401,

intituled Sea to Sky University Amendment Act, 2022, seeks to extend the

tax exemption from property that is owned by the university and used for

educational purposes to also include the property that is leased by the

university and used for educational purposes.

The bill was introduced and read for a first time on April 5,

2022. It then stood referred to the Select Standing Committee on

Parliamentary Reform, Ethical Conduct, Standing Orders and Private

Bills. The committee subsequently received a submission from the

Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Training, which recommended

that the bill be amended to limit the proposed tax exemption to property

leased by Quest University within the district of Squamish

only.

On May 9, 2022, the committee met and considered the proposed

private bill, including the recommended amendment, and asked questions

of representatives of Quest University and the Ministries of Advanced

Education and Skills Training, Finance and Municipal Affairs. The

committee agreed to amend the bill as recommended by the Ministry of

Advanced Education and Skills Training, and to recommend to this House

that the bill proceed as amended. The bill has been reprinted with the

amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Members, the question is adoption of the report.

Motion approved.

Petitions

K. Kirkpatrick: I rise to table a petition of 4,426 signatures, calling for the full

removal of discriminatory, restrictive covenants in West Vancouver, although

this is a provincial issue. The covenant referred to says: “No person of the

African or Asiatic race or of African or Asiatic descent, except servants of

the occupier of the premises and residence…shall reside or be allowed to

reside or remain on the premises.”

This horribly racist language has no place in our society, and I’d

like to commend my constituent, Michelle Tung, who spearheaded this

petition.

Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call the esti­mates for the Ministry of the

Attorney General.

In

Section A, the Douglas Fir Room, I call continued estimates debate for

the Ministry of Transportation and Infrastructure.

[2:35 p.m.]

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF

ATTORNEY

GENERAL

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section B);

S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.

The committee met at 2:37 p.m.

On Vote 15: ministry operations, $581,587,000

(continued) .

M. de Jong: When we broke from this conversation just over a week ago, we were

having a discussion about the challenges associated with the behaviour

of prolific offenders within our society generally and in particular

locations, and the understandably negative reaction and concern that has

elicited from local leaders and citizens and families themselves. I’m

not going to try to summarize the nature of that

conversation.

I did indicate, though, to the Attorney, at that time, that what

I’d like to do is canvass with him, having had that conversation, what

some of the impediments or challenges are, in his mind, to dealing with

this issue more effectively than it has been dealt with thus far.

Ultimately, I hope to be able to provide to the Attorney some thoughts

and suggestions for things the government could do now — as opposed to

three or four or five months from now — to address the issue and solicit

from him his reaction to the viability of some of those

proposals.

With that in mind, what I’d like to do is to begin by exploring

some of the jurisprudence that the Attorney has referred to in comments

in the House as representing an impediment — that might be my word, not

his — or, at least, the jurisprudence from the highest court in the land

that has had an impact on the ability for the province to deal with

prolific offenders and, in particular, to arrest their abilities to

perpetuate criminal behaviour in B.C. communities.

The second component of that, of course, relates to amendments to

the Criminal Code that the Attorney has referred to in the past, in

conversations in this chamber relating to this issue. We’ll come to that

momentarily. I think I have indicated to the Attorney there were three

cases that I was hoping to canvass with him: Zora, Jordan and

Antic.

[2:40 p.m.]

Let’s start with the case of R. v. Zora , a decision that

flowed from the Supreme Court of Canada in 2020. I will very briefly

refer to the facts, because although the Supreme Court of Canada makes

decisions that speak to law and legal tests that are applied, the

context in which those legal tests are developed — the factual context —

I think is important.

The accused in this case was charged with drug of­fences. He

was granted bail with conditions that included a curfew that required

him to appear within five minutes at the door of his house when peace

officers arrived. He failed to do that on a single evening, which led to

charges relating to the bail conditions and whether or not those bail

conditions were appropriate.

That, of course, led to a larger discussion on the bench of the

Supreme Court of Canada about circumstances in which bail was

appropriate and, in particular, the nature of what those bail conditions

should be.

I’m not going to quote verbatim from the court’s ruling, but I

will say this. In a number of cases, the court had something like this

to say: the default form of bail is release on an undertaking to attend

trial without any other conditions. It said that bail conditions can be

imposed but only if they are clearly articulated, minimal in number,

necessary, reasonable, the least onerous in the circumstances and

sufficiently linked to the accused’s risks regarding the statutory

grounds for detention.

Those are, as enumerated by the court, securing the accused’s

attendance in court, ensuring the protection or safety of the public or

maintaining confidence in the administration of justice. It includes

those provisions and references those Criminal Code provisions a number

of times.

The general question to the Attorney, which I think he’s probably

had some time to consider since we left off…. The case is frequently

cited as having altered and made more difficult the ability of Crown

counsel to detain prolific offenders who are brought in, released and

then conduct the same criminal activity, sometimes within hours of

having been released.

What is it about the decision that continues to recognize the

legitimate role of ensuring the protection and safety of the public?

What is it about the decision that has created the challenge, or the

added challenge, that the Attorney has referred to in the past around

detaining prolific offenders?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I think this will be an interesting discussion as we work through

these decisions and the bill. I understand, for reasons of clarity for

the member, for the members of this place and for the public, the desire

to go one by one through these cases in the bill. We’ll do

that.

It’s also important to know that these pieces all work together

and reflect a shift in the directions from the federal parliament and

from the court. At a high level, Zora is a piece of these integrated

cases in Bill C-75.

With respect to the Zora decision, the really significant piece of

this decision, in terms of the implications for prosecutors on the

ground, for defence counsel and for the public, is the case’s holding of

the importance of establishing the mens rea , or the guilty

mind, the intention to break the law.

The proof of a breach has a very high onus on the Crown — to prove

the breach of bail conditions. It’s not a simple procedural thing: “We

knocked on the door. You didn’t answer.” The Crown’s obligation is to

prove this breach went well beyond that, including that this individual

was at home and didn’t answer the door intentionally, that he knew it

was a police officer at the door, that this was part of his bail

condition and still continued in his conduct — or to prove that he was

not, in fact, at home and demonstrate that he had wilfully breached the

condition.

That high onus on the Crown to prove the breach condition brings

with it an obligation for Crown to have conditions in place that are

demonstrable and provable when they do come to court. They shift the

thinking of Crown about how and when particular conditions will be

imposed.

The second piece of the decision — it’s dicta , but it’s

consistent with other decisions in C-75 — is this step principle. When

you’re restricting an individual’s rights with bail conditions, the

court advises that has serious implications. Someone may be waiting for

trial, and that’s fine. But if you want to restrict their rights while

they’re waiting for trial, which can be for an extended period, you’re

going to need to demonstrate that they are failing to adhere to

conditions that are less restrictive before you start, right out of the

gate, imposing very highly restrictive conditions.

Those are the two pieces of Zora that are quite significant for

Crown: reinforcing this step principle, which is consistent with C-75

and with other decisions out of the courts, and also the very high level

of proof that Crown must meet — and by extension, police — in order to

prove that someone is in fact breaching conditions and that they

intentionally are doing so.

M. de Jong: When I read through the decision…. I appreciate the Attorney’s

summary, but let me offer this for his thoughts and reaction.

The court was very, very clear in addressing the question of bail

conditions. The majority decision observed that bail orders frequently

include conditions that don’t address an individual accused’s

risk.

[2:50 p.m.]

It talked about boilerplate conditions and general risk aversion

as it relates to the attachment of bail conditions, the expeditious

nature of bail hearings and the inclination that an accused might be

inclined to agree to more onerous conditions than would be necessary,

simply to avoid any risk of detention. It’s a pretty comprehensive

examination of the analysis that that would go into and that prosecutors

on a daily basis are obliged to undertake in terms of deciding what

conditions might be appropriate or reasonable.

What it doesn’t seem to do, though, is in any way detract from the

legitimate analysis that relates to the preservation or the need to

assess whether, with respect to the release of an accused person, there

is public protection and safety. For our purposes, as it relates to the

kind of behaviour that we are concerned about and that the communities

are concerned about, that is a paramount concern.

I’m curious to know how prosecutors have taken Zora and how that

has influenced, if at all, that fundamental decision about whether or

not detention is warranted. Once that decision has been made, if the

decision is made not to seek the detention, then all of the things that

the Attorney has mentioned and that the court referred to come into play

as it relates to what appropriate conditions of release are.

The concern that has arisen — that has, I think, in part, prompted

the Attorney to strike his panel and seek a report — is from community

leaders who are saying: why has this accused person — who has been

convicted 24 times previously and has embarked on a steady two or three

years of criminal activity — been released? Why hasn’t that concern for

public protection and safety figured more prominently? Again, with

respect to that very narrow consideration and that part of the decision,

I don’t see how Zora would or should have altered the consideration

about when detention is appropriate.

Maybe I’m wrong. Maybe Zora has been interpreted by the B.C.

Prosecution Service as influencing that fundamental decision about

whether or not to seek detention of an accused. If it has, then I’m

interested to know how.

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ll refer the member to the discussion where I think I said that

it’s sort of a step principle, but the actual wording from the decision

is the “ladder principle.” The idea is the same, and it’s legislated in

C-75: that there needs to be an incremental approach to bail conditions

that restrict rights, and they need to respond to specific behaviour of

the specific offender that is in front of the Crown and, by extension,

in front of the court.

Now, a couple of pieces. First of all the member, I think, asked

how this decision has changed Crown’s behaviour in seeking detention.

I’m advised that it has not, that Crown will still seek detention. When

they’re concerned about public safety, the attendance of the person at

court, or the confidence of the public in the administration of justice,

they will seek the detention of the individual. This decision is being

implemented by our Provincial Courts currently, as well as Bill C-75. So

they will be in an exchange with the court back and forth.

Also, in a smaller community where the Crown and the judges are

seeing each other on a regular basis, they’ll be back and forth and

working with that judge’s understanding of the judge’s limitations and

powers under Zora and C-75. It may be that in certain communities

there’s a judge that has a certain understanding of the decision, and

Crown are working with that. I don’t want to say that there has been no

behaviour change following this. However, there’s no formal policy

change that has responded to this.

In fact, I’m advised that Crown will continue to seek detention

consistent with the Criminal Code and the values the member talked

about: protection of the public, confidence of the public in the

administration of justice and attendance of the accused at

court.

I don’t know that that advances us much further beyond or

completely addresses the member’s question. If it doesn’t, then perhaps

he can underline the areas that he’d like me to go over in more

detail.

M. de Jong: Well, it actually does, in large part. To come back to where I

started — I’m not trying to be cute or coy about what I’m trying to

explore with the Attorney here — it is the degree to which Supreme Court

of Canada jurisprudence, coupled with C-75, in the minds of the

Prosecution Service and the Attorney as their representative here, has

somehow altered or created additional challenges around a pretty basic

question: when is it appropriate for an accused person to be

detained?

More importantly, I suppose, when is it appropriate for the

Prosecution Service to seek detention? The decision lined with that

third order of government called the judiciary.

What the Attorney has said…. I’ll just confirm, so that if I have

misinterpreted or misunderstood what he said, he can correct me and the

committee. That is that the Zora decision, in and of itself — whilst it

has provided some specific rulings, guidelines, around the question of

what are appropriate bail conditions — hasn’t in any way altered,

impacted or influenced, in the operation of the B.C. Prosecution

Service, the determination of that basic question: whether or not it is

appropriate to seek the detention of a particular accused.

[3:00 p.m.]

If the answer to that question is that detention won’t be sought,

then I think it is fair to say that Zora becomes very relevant, and

prosecutors must have regard for what the court has said about the kinds

of conditions that might be applicable. But the Attorney seems to be

saying that on the basic question of whether or not an accused person

should be detained, Zora hasn’t impacted that question, nor has it led

to any policy changes or procedural changes within the prosecution

service. If that’s correct, then I’m glad to hear it.

Hon. D. Eby: A couple of pieces here. One is that Zora itself, as I said, is

part of this grouping of Bill C-75 and Jordan and Antic, which have

changed, have made significant changes in the criminal justice system in

Canada.

Zora is specifically cited in the Crown bail policy document, but

it is for principles that are encoded in C-75 that come from changes to

the Criminal Code made by the federal government around this laddering

principle and the principle of restraint, which was codified in

C-75.

The interaction between Zora and C-75 and so on…. I think it’s

correct to say, which I did, that Zora doesn’t change the behaviour of

Crown around the key values of the attendance of the accused, protection

of the public, confidence in the administration of justice to seeking

someone’s detention versus their release. But Zora, with Jordan and

Antic and C-75, has changed what courts will do with accused, and Crown

need to be sensitive to that.

The main reason, I would say, that Zora has not had that influence

is because there was a statutory change in C-75 that was significantly

more influential, but we’ll talk about that, I suspect.

M. de Jong: We’ll come to the legislation and the amendments to the Criminal

Code momentarily, and the Attorney will get no dispute from me that they

impact upon sections of the Criminal Code that are certainly relevant to

the question of release and conditions of judicial interim release. But

we’ll come there in a moment.

[3:05 p.m.]

I think maybe one last question or two on the Zora case. If it is

so, and I believe it is — the Attorney has, I think, confirmed this —

that Zora hasn’t impacted the approach or the analysis adopted by the

Prosecution Service around the basic question of whether detention will

be sought of an individual or not, it clearly has set out a blueprint

for what prosecutors must consider as it relates to the application for

conditions of bail in cases where an accused is released.

What can the Attorney tell the committee about how the Prosecution

Service has changed, how its procedures have changed insofar as the

question of conditions for release? I’m going to look ahead to a

conversation we’ll have down the road, or a little bit further in these

debates. Has it led to the adoption of not just new policies but new

approaches around the use of technology, whether it’s electronic

monitoring technology?

Clearly, the decision has had some relevance with respect to

conditions of release. How have policies within the Prosecution Service

been impacted here in the last couple of years?

Hon. D. Eby: On the question of electronic monitoring — I understand it is used

by corrections — it is one of the areas that I’ve asked our

investigators to have a look at to see whether there would be benefits

from using electronic monitoring in relation to non-probation uses. For

example, release on bail, making that available to courts. We’ll see

what comes back on that.

The key policy changes within Crown counsel policy that have

followed from Zora and C-75 and these other cases are this idea of the

ladder principle, which the courts and C-75 emphasize. The idea of a

principle of least restraint is also coming from those decisions in

C-75, and reforms — and it’s not related to any of these cases — related

to the overrepresentation of Indigenous offenders.

The member would surely have seen the coverage recently about the

growth of Indigenous women being incarcerated in jails

disproportionately in Canada. Also, messages from the federal parliament

and Supreme Court of Canada in some different decisions.

M. de Jong: Can the Attorney offer maybe a more practical example? For

example, the Supreme Court of Canada observed a tendency on the part of

Crown counsel…

[3:10 p.m.]

By the way, Crown counsel across the country. I don’t want to

pretend that the Supreme Court of Canada was picking on the B.C.

Prosecution Service. This was a commentary, I think, on Crown council

across the land — a propensity to seek boilerplate-type conditions

without a lot of regard for the particulars of the individual involved.

If that is so, how has that changed in the intervening, I guess, two to

four years since the decision?

If one were to look and examine the types of release conditions

that are sought and ultimately applied by the courts, how would they be

different today than they were prior to Zora? Again, it really was a

case about conditions of release, as opposed to whether or not there

should be a release.

Hon. D. Eby: Some of this may sound a bit contradictory, so if it does, I

invite the member to ask me a question to clarify.

The general theme of the courts and C-75 is to tailor conditions

to the specific value that you’re trying to protect. Is it the

attendance of the individual in court? Is it the protection of the

public by preventing future crimes? Is it confidence in the

administration of the justice system, that this appears responsive to

the situation that’s in front of the court? And the conditions should be

tailored in that way.

The member is right that the court was critical of boilerplate

conditions. Now, here’s the potentially contradictory part, and I’ll try

to thread this needle, because there are a lot of people going through

court. There are busy Crown and busy judges and busy defence counsel, so

wordsmithing specific conditions for each offender that comes through is

a significant enterprise.

The courts and the Crown have a desire to meet the conditions of

the federal law and the federal Supreme Court of Canada decisions, but

also it would be nice if we didn’t have to figure out the wording of the

specific condition every time someone needs it in order to respond to

one of these values.

[3:15 p.m.]

So there has been an expansion in — I guess, for lack of a better

word — a menu of potential conditions that creates more possibility for

tailoring to the specific value that you’re trying to protect, as well

as the conditions of the offender, but also have the standardized

language.

So in a sense, it is kind of boilerplate, but it’s a far more

sophisticated and nuanced set of options for language, and they can be

modified to respond to the conditions of the particular

offender.

There’s another piece that’s underlying this that we should talk

about, which is the uses of bail. One of the areas, one of the values,

that I didn’t mention, which I think the member and I, I suspect, share,

is the desire for people to get treatment for mental health and

addiction issues that may lead them into criminal activity. The courts

have been clear — the law is clear — that we cannot use bail to impose

treatment for illness and mental health. That’s not the purpose of the

bail system.

Now, this is a fairly significant challenge, because I think the

reason that a lot of people end up in court is because they are mentally

ill or they are grappling with addiction, and it would make sense to be

able to have that as an option to respond to that issue that that person

is facing.

We have a drug court in Vancouver. We have a community court that

tries to craft sentences that are responsive to these issues that

someone might face, so that we’re dealing with the underlying issue on

sentencing rather than sort of the surface issue or the fact that a

window was broken or something was shoplifted. The reason why this

happened is that the person was sick. We do have ways to respond to that

through sentencing. The challenge is around bail — that that is not

available.

I invite follow-up questions from the member if he has them in

relation to that.

These are the significant constraints and challenges and how the

courts and Crown have tried to work within this framework to try to

deliver what’s needed for communities in the province.

M. de Jong: I think a final question, with respect to this decision of the

Supreme Court of Canada…. I think it speaks to a scenario that

prosecutors are confronted by on a fairly regular basis. We talked about

prolific offenders, and I described a type of prolific offender last day

that most assuredly exists. The Attorney, again, has referred to another

type of offender whose behaviour is perhaps less deliberate, although

that is, I suppose, a legal term that one has to be careful with, but is

more strongly influenced by a mental condition that the person may be

suffering.

Yet in both cases, members of the public might say or a reasonable

observer would say, whatever the cause, whether it is a person who has

rationally, if that is an appropriate term, chosen to pursue a life of

crime or a person who has been driven into that behaviour by a mental

condition or an addiction…. If, at the end of the day, the behaviour

that flows from that person constitutes a threat to the public, what is

to be done? The Attorney has pointed out the restrictions that the Zora

case places on a prosecutor who might wish to request the imposition of

a condition of release that requires treatment. But that option doesn’t

exist in the way that it once did or maybe at all.

A long-winded way of saying: how does the Prosecution Service

today, notwithstanding the obvious concern that one would have for those

whose behaviour is influenced by mental health conditions…? How does

that weigh against behaviour that a reasonable person would say

constitutes a threat to the safety of the public, and how does that

drive a decision or the decisions that prosecutors have to make on a

daily basis?

[3:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The process is described to me as follows. An individual comes

who’s dealing with a mental health or addiction issue that is resulting

in their behaviour, which is criminal in nature. So vandalism,

shoplifting, threats — these kinds of things. Crown will say to defence

counsel in court: “You can’t consent to release for this individual.

Their behaviour is such that they’re a risk to the public, and this is

one of the values that we need to protect.”

What can flow from that…. It doesn’t always but what can, often,

for individuals who are represented, is…. Defence counsel will attempt

to put together what’s called a release plan, which responds to the

health issue that the person faces. They may propose that there be a

condition that the person be released with a reside-at order. You reside

at this address, and the address is, in fact, a treatment centre that

deals with addiction.

They may have conditions related to sureties or people who are

willing to say: “I will take responsibility. I will watch this person.

This is my son, and I will make sure that he’s not back out in the

community, committing offences, and will attend court.” It could have

any aspect of supports related to those underlying health

conditions.

On occasion, these release plans will not be acceptable to the

Crown. The court will get involved, and the three parties will try to

work out something that will respond to the core concern, the protection

of the public, and the underlying reason for that concern, the mental

health issue or the addiction issue, through any release conditions.

Then sometimes a person won’t be released. They’ll be remanded to jail.

Sometimes a release plan will be able to address those

issues.

That is how it happens. The person, essentially, agrees to these

conditions in lieu of a custodial remand, in lieu of going to jail. It

can’t be just imposed. It’s a challenging dance that the Prosecution

Service is put into with defence counsel and with the court. The

overriding goal — Crown know this, and they implement it — is to protect

the public, and that applies whether the reason the person is behaving

in this way is because of their mental health issue, because of an

addiction issue or just because of straight criminality.

M. de Jong: I guess, to be fair…. From the accused’s perspective, though, the

decision is whether or not to accept release conditions as proposed or

run the risk of detention, insofar as…. It isn’t the Prosecution Service

that has the ability to simply impose the alternative. It involves

running the risk that the judicial branch would do that.

Here’s my question, which flows from that. As a matter of policy

within the prosecution branch on these questions of detention versus

release — and then, in the case of release, appropriate conditions of

release — is public safety a paramount consideration? I mean, there is a

balancing of considerations here. But is public safety paramount in

circumstances where there are risks?

[3:25 p.m.]

I hope I’m articulating the question in a way that the Attorney

General and his staff can understand. All things being equal, does

public safety, safety of the public, assume a paramount

consideration?

Hon. D. Eby: The Crown policy does not assign a hierarchy to the three values

section 515. They say that the conditions of 515 must be met, that

you need to be satisfied that the accused is going to be attending court

for hearings, that the public will not…. Their safety will not be

imperilled by the release of the individual. The confidence of the

public in the administration of justice needs to be

preserved.

These conditions must be met in the decisions by Crown. So

certainly, the safety and protection of the public is one of those

requirements that must be met in the Crown’s decisions.

M. de Jong: Is there anything that would preclude, in the case of a prolific

offender…? I recognize that we have not, here, definitively defined what

a prolific offender is. We have canvassed what other jurisdictions have

done, which, I will suggest to the committee, most reasonable people

would consider a reasonable definition.

Is there anything to preclude the adoption of a policy within the

Prosecution Service when dealing with an accused who falls within the

definition of “prolific offender” to assign a hierarchy or a priority

around public safety?

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Hon. D. Eby: Crown is bound by the Criminal Code,

section 515(10). It says that

conditions may be placed to ensure attendance in court, protection or

safety of the public, maintain confidence in the administration of

justice. It does not allow a hierarchy of these things.

I should say that the expectation is — my expectation is, the

expectation of the policy is — that Crown will seek the necessary

conditions or will seek detention in a situation where the protection

and the safety of the public are at risk.

M. de Jong: Of course, in addition, I suppose, to the Crown, it is ultimately

the courts which are bound in applying these provisions of the Criminal

Code. We’ll come back to this conversation about the degree to which the

Crown can adopt a policy that is not inconsistent with the statutory

provisions of the Criminal Code but may be helpful in addressing the

unique safety concerns, public safety concerns, represented by prolific

offenders.

[3:30 p.m.]

Let’s move to the Jordan case. I should say, in this…. It was a

B.C. case, to be fair, one that emanated in…. I think 2008 was the

trial-level decision, if I’m not mistaken. It made its way to the

Supreme Court of Canada from the B.C. Court of Appeal in 2015, 2016.

This case is also frequently cited — in the context of discussions we

have been having in this House around public safety and prolific

offenders — as having represented a shift, a complicating factor in the

task that prosecutors in British Columbia and the B.C. Prosecution

Service have in performing their task of ensuring public

safety.

I’ll begin by making this observation. I think it represents a

potentially complicating factor, but not in the way that I have heard it

referred to, because it is, in effect, in my reading, a further

iteration of the rule around unreasonable delay. The majority of the

Supreme Court of Canada has taken a fairly prescriptive approach. This

was an individual who was charged in ’08 in a dial-a-dope operation, and

his trial ended in 2013, so there was a five-year delay.

The court went through the jurisprudence around delay. Back 100

years ago, when I was practising, Askov was the definitive case, and of

course, some cases — I think Morin and others — came along since then.

Now we have Jordan, which talks about, I think, an 18-month outside

period for the conclusion of a trial. Then it talks about how the

burdens shift in cases where there is a delay beyond that, how the Crown

is then obliged to…. The burden shifts to the Crown to explain and

justify those delays, all of which are informative.

Again, when the Attorney General mentioned that in the context of

the discussion we were having about prolific offenders and what has been

referred to as catch and release of accused persons, upon reflection,

I’m not sure what the relevance of Jordan is in that context. These are

delays that may flow, if they do at all, and become problematic. But

they occur well after decisions have been made about whether or not a

prolific offender should be released. Those are decisions made very

quickly.

Now, bad things can happen in terms of judicial stays of

proceedings, where the delay goes beyond what is deemed reasonable by

these decisions. But the initial question is: what is it about Jordan,

the Supreme Court of Canada decision in Jordan, that has further

complicated the lives of Crown prosecutors as it relates to their role

about determining whether or not a prolific offender should be released

or detained?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The Supreme Court of Canada decision in Jordan imposes strict

timelines on the resolution of a criminal justice matter: 18 months for

a provincial court, 30 months for the superior courts in Canada. The

start of that clock is the laying of a charge. So if your interest is

the individual actually being tried for the offence and potentially

convicted — at least having that day in court on the offence — then you

need to be very aware of how much time you need to get to court and when

that clock starts, and that clock starts with the laying of the

charge.

One of the ways to respond to the Jordan decision that provinces

have come to is to be very careful that when the charge is laid, you

have all your ducks in a row. One of those ducks is disclosure. There is

a full disclosure policy. It started in…. There was an MOU in 2005,

following Jordan.

It was updated in 2011 and then again in 2012 to say: “Police, you

need to have all of your disclosure for the case ready before Crown can

lay the charge, because as soon as Crown lays the charge, that clock

starts, and we want to get this person to trial, so they’re actually

tried on this, within the Jordan window. We don’t want to have

gangsters. We don’t want to have prolific offenders. We don’t want to

have ‘name your group’ walking away on a ‘technicality’” — which is

actually a serious principle, a trial within a reasonable amount of

time. “We don’t want them walking because of Jordan without being tried

for the offence.” So we need to be very careful when we lay the

charge.

When I hear the phrase “catch and release,” it’s probably some of

the frustration of police. They’ve caught this person. They have

reasonable probable grounds to arrest them. They’ve done the report to

Crown counsel. They’ve brought it to Crown, and Crown said: “Listen, we

need you to have full disclosure before I can lay this charge. I’m not

going to charge this person before you have the full disclosure, because

as soon as I lay that charge, then the clock starts.”

That can be incredibly frustrating from the police perspective.

It’s like: “Well, related to this offence is a person’s cell phone, and

there’s maybe an issue with the cell phone records, and now I’ve got to

deal with the phone company and all these other things to get warrants

and whatever. I know this is the guy, and now we’re just going to —

what? — let this person go.” That is the balance.

We want them to come to trial. The court has imposed these very

strict timelines. The Ontario Crown recently, at the Supreme Court of

Canada, made an argument saying: “This is really not a great system,

Supreme Court of Canada. This is a big problem for us on the

administration of justice side.” The court said: “Tough.” Actually, they

were much harsher in their language for the prosecutors in Ontario that

made that argument. They said: “This is a constitutional right. It’s

trial in a reasonable amount of time, and you need to figure that

out.”

That is one of the implications for Jordan, and it relates not

just to prolific offenders but to accused across the board for offences

serious and more minor.

The Chair: Member.

M. de Jong: Madam Chair, welcome to the chair.

Okay. So here’s what that sounds like, I am certain, to a mayor —

one of those mayors that signed off on the letter to the Attorney

General. To them, that would sound like, having regard for the Jordan

decision, we — meaning the state, meaning the prosecution service — are

not confident that we can prosecute and try this person within the

18-month period prescribed and required by the court. Therefore…. Well,

we’re not confident we can do that if we charge this person and detain

this person today, so we will do neither.

[3:40 p.m.]

I understand that part of what the Attorney General is saying is

that, no question, there is frustration at the end of the exercise, when

a court says in response to what I guess are now called Jordan

applications…. They used to be Askov applications but now are Jordan

applications. The court says, “Yes, this took too long, and we’re

imposing a judicial stay,” and there is frustration.

There is at least as great a frustration when the person who has

been brought in by the police with video camera evidence of an assault

or criminal behaviour is released, because there is concern about

meeting the timeline, to repeat that behaviour, in the case of a

prolific offender, three more times before the expiration of the 18

months. Leaders of B.C.’s communities are saying, “If that’s the

response to a requirement imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada, if

that’s the proposed solution, we don’t like the solution,” because out

of a lack of confidence that the timeline can be met, people who might

otherwise be charged, which would trigger a detention application, are

simply being released to go forth and commit again.

If I’ve misstated that — but I don’t think I have — this is the

time for the Attorney to tell me how I have misstated that.

Hon. D. Eby: The member asked me…. He said: “I don’t understand how Jordan

relates to prolific offenders.” So I tried to explain the connection

there may be in some cases. The member then, in his follow-up question,

took it another level and said: “Okay. Well then, if people aren’t being

charged, then that puts the public at risk.”

The error was mine in that I should have, in my initial answer,

been a little bit clearer about the discretion on the part of Crown and

police here. Police have the discretion under C-75 to arrest someone and

to release them, including with an appearance notice or generally. They

have that authority under this bill, and they do, do that.

Police also have a discretion about when they bring a report to

Crown counsel, whether they have all their disclosure in line or not,

and they have a discretion about telling Crown that this is something

called an in-custody matter, which is where someone has been arrested,

brought to cells, and not released because the police have concerns

about protection of the public, protection of victims, and so

on.

[3:45 p.m.]

For in-custody matters, where police are advising Crown, “Look, we

have a concern about public safety; there’s an issue here,” the Crown

has the discretion to depart from the full disclosure policy to ensure

that the public is protected. The reason I want to underline that is

that the member’s colleague from Kamloops South was under the impression

that that full disclosure policy meant you couldn’t charge someone with

a homicide and you couldn’t charge someone with a serious assault until

all the lab work was in or whatever. That’s not the case. Crown

maintains that discretion.

But it is part of the challenge of the work of policing and Crown

counsel when you have this decision and you have a suspect and you’re

making a decision about when to recommend that charge, for police, and

when to lay that charge, for Crown. We’ve had very upset municipal

leaders come to us and say: “Why have Crown not approved charges on this

file?” It turns out that Crown doesn’t even have the file yet from

police, because the police know that they don’t have the materials that

they need for that trial to go ahead. They’re concerned about Jordan,

just like everybody is, and it’s a serious offence.

I don’t pretend it’s not challenging. It is. A lot of the

frustration from the front line of the criminal justice system was

expressed by Crown counsel in the Supreme Court of Canada very recently

in an opportunity for the court to revisit Jordan, which they declined

to do.

I wanted to provide that clarification, though, to the member,

just so that he wasn’t left with the impression that this was just what

was happening as a matter of course. For the majority of the low-level,

prolific offender–type offences — the mischief, the shoplifting, and so

on — these aren’t complicated cases waiting for disclosure. But when

mayors complain about catch-and-release, Jordan could be one of those

reasons. In some serious police investigations, it has been one of the

reasons they feel that the system’s not working.

M. de Jong: For the purposes of calculating the 18 months that the Supreme

Court of Canada refers to and imposes, I presume that the clock starts

ticking at the time a charge is laid, except in circumstances where

detention has been sought or, I suppose, even bail conditions have been

imposed. I presume the clock would start ticking at that point. Is that

correct?

Hon. D. Eby: I’m advised that the clock starts to tick when an information is

sworn by Crown counsel. Or in some cases, in an urgent matter, police

can swear an information themselves. That is what starts the

clock.

M. de Jong: I’m surprised to hear that. I would have thought that able defence

counsel would make the point around delay, where an accused has been

detained, perhaps, for a period of time pending the formalization of

charges, and that period when that person’s liberties have been removed

or severely constrained would factor into the calculation of delay. But

the Attorney is saying that that’s not the case?

[3:50 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve got some information that may assist the member in

understanding some of the complexities here. When an individual is

arrested, they have the right to and must appear in front of a judge

within 24 hours. Crown will have either, themselves, sworn an

information or approved the information sworn by police within that

24-hour period.

Technically, the person could be remanded for two days, following

that appearance, for the charges to be sorted out, but as a matter of

practice and policy, those matters are dealt with in the first 24 hours.

So there’s not an extended period that defence counsel could say, “Well,

this is part of the Jordan timeline,” where the individual didn’t have a

charge.

M. de Jong: What I was trying to explore is to what extent, if at all, the

application of the rules in Jordan would again influence, one way or

another, a decision by Crown counsel to seek detention of a prolific

offender. It sounds like it wouldn’t. By the way, I say that,

acknowledging that the decision in Jordan imposes other burdens on the

Crown that are very relevant, as it relates to the expeditious

dispensation of justice.

It doesn’t sound like anything in Jordan would influence or change

the considerations around whether or not an individual’s, who falls into

the category of prolific offender, detention should be sought or not. I

think that, at the end of the day, is the essence of my question on this

and the other cases that we’ve been considering.

Hon. D. Eby: It took us a few minutes to figure each other out on this side, so

hopefully I do this justice.

First of all, I said two days additional remand period. The

correction is it’s actually three days potential additional remand

before an information is sworn. The distinction here is whether or not

an information has been sworn. So Jordan is influential about when that

information is sworn, and the process that’s followed leading up to

that, and the charge is formalized. But it is not influential once the

decision has been made to swear the information by police or by Crown,

and that clock is started. It is not influential about the decision

whether or not to detain a person on that charge.

To somebody from outside the justice system looking at it, this

may be a distinction without a practical difference, but it is a

distinction.

[3:55 p.m.]

M. de Jong: There is a distinction. I think, obviously, the Attorney is alive

to why I’m exploring this, and that relates to the influence these

decisions and, ultimately, the legislation have on that key part of the

decision-making process. There are different stages of that: the

decision to lay an information and decisions around detention or release

and, if release, on what conditions. It is that question around

detention as it relates to prolific offenders that obviously has engaged

the opposition’s attention, because it has engaged the attention of

communities across British Columbia as it relates to the scourge of

repeated criminal activity by a very small number of ill-motivated

individuals.

The third in the trilogy of cases that the Attorney and others

have referred to is Antic, which was an appeal to the Supreme Court of

Canada from the Ontario Court of Appeal. Again, for the purposes of

time, I’m going to make this observation for the Attorney, with the

assistance of his staff, to respond to. That is this.

In the Antic case, it strikes me that again the issue that was

before the court related to the proper application of bail conditions.

In this case, we’ve got a person charged with drug and firearms

offences. He was denied release at his bail hearing and then sought

review, as an individual is certainly entitled to do, and was confronted

by a review judge who observed that he would have released the accused

if he could have imposed two conditions simultaneously.

The court, all the way up to the Supreme Court of Canada, assessed

and then that made its way through to the Ontario Court of Appeal

whether or not that was an appropriate consideration for the review

judge to make. Again, it didn’t touch on the original decision around

detention, so the question again remains the same.

To what extent, if at all, has the decision in Antic influenced

the approach and the policy that guides the B.C. Prosecution Service

around the original decision about whether or not to seek the detention

of any offender? We are focused here today on prolific

offenders.

Hon. D. Eby: I am advised this case is influential because it is the first of

the more modern cases that kicked off this discussion that culminated in

C-75 about the fact that more and more people were being detained,

waiting for trials despite the implication of the Charter and the right

to be presumed innocent in advance of being convicted.

[4:00 p.m.]

It was one of the first significant cases that talked about, at

Supreme Court of Canada, this ladder approach of moving up the ladder

and tailoring conditions to the specifics of the offender and shifting

from this broad understanding of detained people as sort of a

presumption of detention to a presumption of the right to be presumed

innocent and to tailor the conditions to the specific situation of the

offender. It is of a piece with Zora and C-75 and is relevant in that

way.

M. de Jong: In the case where the accused counsel, on behalf of the accused,

sought a declaration of unconstitutionality of provisions, that was

ultimately denied. I think the Court of Appeal made a finding of the

Criminal Code provisions being unconstitutional. The Supreme Court of

Canada reversed that decision; the Supreme Court of Canada said these

are things that are important. I’m not sure how this altered the

law.

The court said that the right not to be denied reasonable bail

without just cause is a key element of our criminal justice system. That

right not to be denied bail without just cause is tied to the effect of

the presumption of innocence at the pretrial stage of a criminal trial.

It safeguards the liberty of people, including the accused. A person

charged with an offence has the right not to be denied bail without just

cause and the right to reasonable bail.

There is just cause to deny bail only if the denial occurs in a

narrow set of circumstances and the denial is necessary to promote the

proper functioning of the bail system. It then goes on to discuss the

whole notion of “reasonable bail.” In fact, the vast majority of the

decision is about what constitutes “reasonable bail,” as opposed to the

test that is to be applied as it relates to detention versus release.

The essence of the case is what constitutes reasonable conditions once a

determination has been made that someone will be released.

Again, we say these things, and we’re going to come to C-75 in a

moment. But on its own, just as we talked with the previous two

decisions, I’m going to ask the Attorney whether or not the Supreme

Court of Canada decision in Antic in any way influenced or altered the

policy, within the Prosecution Service, about when it was appropriate to

seek detention or not.

I’ll be very surprised if he says that it somehow influenced the

test the prosecutors apply in determining whether or not detention is

appropriate. It may well have influenced the approach they take as it

relates to conditions of release but not the original question about

whether or not detention should be sought. I’m all ears to hear the

answer.

[4:05 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: The member is drawing a distinction, in these cases, between the

decision to release somebody with conditions or on what conditions

they’re released and whether it influences specific decisions to charge.

There are two components to this. Antic relates to the content of

conditions, absolutely. It is of a piece with Zora and C-75 in this

respect. Also, though, is the distinction — and I try to draw it a bit

in Jordan — that there is an impact these cases have on the decision to

lay charges, especially in the category of offences called

administration-of-justice offences.

Conditions that are imposed…. As we discussed in Zora, the

condition was: “Listen. Answer the door, when the police officer knocks

on the door, within five minutes.” In that decision — about whether or

not he answered the door and whether or not he had the requisite

mens rea , the guilty mind, to satisfy the requirement of a

conviction for an administration-of-justice offence — these cases do

have an impact on charges related to administration of

justice.

I wanted to draw out that distinction a little bit, because it is

related to the core of these cases as well, which is about the content

of the conditions and the decision on whether or not to remand into

custody or to agree to a release plan for an individual that’s proposed

by defence counsel or submissions to the court about what reasonable

conditions should be if the person is going to be released by the

judge.

M. de Jong: I accept the proposition advanced by the Attorney General around

the distinction between administration-of-justice offences and other

types of offences against public safety. I think the court does address

that, and that’s the case. Maybe the easiest way for me to do this,

rather than deal in the abstract: I’m going to use a practical

example.

[4:10 p.m.]

An accused is brought in by the police and brought before the

court — one of the individuals whom this conversation revolves around,

that prolific offender in Kamloops, in Kelowna, in Abbotsford, in

Victoria — who has now, for the 20th time in the last three years,

committed an assault and a serious, property-related offence against a

person, and, along the way, may well have accumulated some

administration-of-justice-type charges as well, and convictions as it

relates to conditions of release.

But I’m going to suggest that the public preoccupation is with the

public safety aspect of this. The prosecutor with conduct of the case is

confronted by a decision about whether or not to seek the detention of

this individual on, presumably, the basis of public safety

considerations, because of the threat of reoffence, given the person’s

recent record and behaviour as a prolific offender.

The case we’re now dealing with certainly does, again, speak to

conditions. It speaks to conditions that might be appropriate as it

relates to administration-of-justice offences, but I don’t see anything

in the Supreme Court of Canada’s decision that would require Crown

counsel to adjust or alter the approach or their analysis of what

constitutes public safety and the policy that would exist around when

detention is deemed necessary to protect the public safety.

If I’m wrong, it’s merely a case of pointing to the component or

the part of the decision that says I’m wrong. But as I’ve…. The

Attorney, presumably, and his staff, understand what I’m getting at

here, because at some point I’m going to want to offer some suggestions

for things that could happen. I don’t think the Supreme Court, in this

decision or the other ones, has provided any constraints around some

policy shifts that might better serve the interest of public

safety.

I won’t ask the Attorney to comment on that until I’ve offered the

suggestions. That wouldn’t be fair. But my proposition, as it relates to

this case, remains the same. The court was not critical of the approach

taken and the decision to seek detention, or even the original detention

order. It was critical further down the process, around the conditions

that a reviewing judge and appellate-level courts decided to impose or

not impose, and the analysis that they employed in determining which

conditions were applicable. That’s the proposition I am putting to the

Attorney, and I’m interested to hear his reply.

Hon. D. Eby: C-75 and these cases are an interpretive guide to implementing the

provisions of the Criminal Code around bail and release. So when people

and communities say, “catch and release,” often they’re talking about

the decision made by the court to release an individual who has been

arrested on an offence.

[4:15 p.m.]

These are squarely related to the perception the public have

about: “Hold on, this guy just appears to have committed a crime, and

now he’s back out in the community. How did this happen? What’s wrong

with our catch-and-release justice system?” That’s why these cases are

relevant to public confidence in the justice system and concern about

prolific offenders.

The member and I can have these…. We’re both members of the bar.

We’ve studied law, follow law. We’re interested in law. We can have this

discussion about this point in time and this condition and how these

cases relate to it. But from the perspective of the shop owner that just

had someone walk a canoe out the front door, and then the guy…. It’s a

small town. “I know that guy. He was just arrested for that, and now

he’s back downtown. How does that work?”

So this is, to my mind anyway — the member might agree; he might

not — the core confidence issue that I feel the need to do my best to

address as Attorney General. I know that the Minister of Public Safety

shares the interest of addressing this concern that the mayors have

brought forward to us. It’s how these cases influence people’s

perceptions of how the justice system is working or not

working.

It could be that he’s back downtown because there’s an issue

around Jordan timing. It could be he’s back downtown because the

principle of least restraint required that. It could be any number of

reasons. It is hard. The member is trying to give shape and concrete

examples to this, but it is hard to talk about these things in the

abstract. It’s often easier to talk about in specific fact patterns,

which is why the courts are very reluctant to work on reference cases

and are much more interested in strong evidentiary foundation before

they go to the Court of Appeal or Supreme Court of Canada.

I’m not sure if that’s helpful to respond to the member’s

question, but that’s my understanding of the issue that we face

currently.

M. de Jong: I hope the Attorney will agree, based on the submissions he’s

received from others than myself or the political opposition in the

province, that the strongly held belief that that phenomenon of the

person returning to the streets and committing the same crimes —

sometimes crimes against people, serious crimes against people — on a

repetitive basis is occurring with greater regularity. That’s certainly

the view of the people in communities strewn across British

Columbia.

The argument that has been advanced…. I think I’m being fair

during these proceedings — and earlier. The Attorney has said that our

ability as a society, as a state, to address that has been influenced —

but I think he means, to be fair, made more difficult — by a series of

Supreme Court of Canada decisions and some legislative changes that the

federal parliament has introduced.

We’ve talked about some of the Supreme Court of Canada decisions.

but I think the three main ones…. I’ll leave with this

observation.

Notwithstanding the general degree to which these decisions serve

as guides to trial-level courts on issues like bail and bail conditions,

I am not certain that they should be influencing questions of detention

to the degree that we are being led to believe. That’s the jurisprudence

from the Supreme Court of Canada.

Let’s go to C-75 and the straightforward question. Having advised

the House and the province that this legislation has directly influenced

the ability the Crown has to preserve public safety as it relates to

public offenders and the detention of public offenders, let’s simply

start with this. It’s a specific piece of legislation that amends

specific sections of the Criminal Code of Canada.

[4:20 p.m.]

Which ones are the problems? Which amendments, which sections of

C-75 have emerged to be the most problematic as it relates to public

safety and questions of detention of prolific offenders?

Hon. D. Eby: There are several provisions of the bill that restrict the ability

of Crown and police in the conditions that can be imposed. I’ll run the

member through a few of them, but the “too long, didn’t read” version of

this is that there was a significant compression of the options that are

available to Crown and courts in terms of conditions on release on

bail.

Overarching this restriction is the principle of restraint to the

least onerous measures that are available to achieve the goal of

section

515. It translates into, further on in the bill, restrictions on the use

of cash bail requirements, restrictions on the use of sureties. This is

someone who’s willing to step up and say: “I’ll take responsibility, and

I’ll make sure that this person attends court and is prevented from

reoffending.”

There’s a new process established, called a referral hearing

process, which is meant to cause Crown counsel to think twice before

imposing charges for breach of condition and instead use this referral

hearing process to have the judge reconsider bail conditions when a

person breaches, rather than a formal charge, as would have previously

taken place.

[4:25 p.m.]

All of these principles are used by reviewing courts. On a breach,

for example, a person has a condition. They go out. They violate the

condition, and then you want to do an administration of justice offence,

which is the old way, frankly — pre- these cases and C-75 — of

controlling the behaviour of a significant number of people in the

province.

You want to go ahead with the breach charge, but this will be the

test that the court is applying. Is it, in fact, appropriate to go ahead

with a breach charge in this circumstance? The whole spirit of C-75 as

well as Zora and Antic say: “Don’t use the bail system in this

way.”

Taken on their own, I think that you could say: “Okay. It makes

sense” — least restrictive measures and this referral hearing process,

and so on. Put together with the cases that we’ve been discussing, it is

a significant reduction in the tools that used to be available to

control the behaviour of a small but influential group of people in the

province in terms of people’s feeling of public safety, which

complicates the solutions.

The member is coming to one of the pieces in his questioning, one

of the pieces that has challenged the government. Certainly his caucus

has been clear about their feelings about the approach the government

has taken to retain these experts in this area. But it’s not hard to

come to the conclusion I think the member is that the solution to this

is probably not, and the issue itself is probably not, laid at the feet

of Crown but is more complicated than that.

And I can take the member through clearance rates by police, which

are down, reports to Crown counsel, which are down — and not just down

like sort of in a political 1 percent; significantly down over the most

recent five-year period.

Then you layer this piece on as well, and it becomes clear that

we’re going to need another way to respond. We’re going to need to

address some issues that aren’t immediately obvious — frankly, at least

not to me. Although, I look forward to hearing the member’s suggestions

that he’s advised are coming. So that is the challenge that we face, in

my opinion.

M. de Jong: We did have an opportunity last day to review some of the data

that the Attorney has referred to in terms of reports to Crown counsel.

We talked about timing and charge approvals and no-charge statistics. I

think we had a pretty thorough conversation around that.

What I’m trying, now, to determine is the extent to which the

specific amendments to the Criminal Code around judicial interim release

are deemed by the Attorney and the government to be problematic. I guess

I might as well use the term, because I will say this — and I hope

fairly.

I have heard on a number of occasions the Attorney General profess

some understanding and appreciation for the frustration of community

leaders who see prolific offenders inflicting harm on the people in

their communities and on the businesses in their communities and on

property owners in their communities. And when asked, the Attorney

points to jurisprudence, and he points to changes in the Criminal Code

that have made it more difficult for the prosecution branch, the Crown

prosecutors, to address those issues.

So now I want to be a little more specific. C-75 included specific

amendments to

section 210 of the Criminal Code relating to judicial

interim release and the detention of people pending their trial. Is the

government and the Attorney supportive of those amendments? If not, what

specific part of those amendments would he point to as perhaps requiring

alteration or reconsideration?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[4:30 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I think the challenge of C-75, Zora, Jordan and Antic is their

cumulative impact. It’s hard to point to any one provision of these

sections — the principle of restraint, for example — and not say, “Well,

that makes a lot of sense. You should use the least onerous method, and

we shouldn’t be using bail courts in this way,” and so on, but it is

pretty clear to me, and I think that it’s clear to committee members,

that there’s a group of people that this is not responsive

to.

We’ll certainly define that group of people. I think it’s really

about people who are committing multiple criminal offences, who have

extended and long histories with police, are frequent fliers in the

justice system and probably in the emergency services system as well,

and it is not responsive to the needs of those individuals.

At the provincial level, we’re going to identify what we can do to

respond to that, I think, unintended consequence of these provisions, to

close those gaps and find ways to respond to the needs of this

population. I think it’s probably necessary for the federal parliament

to have a look at this within the Criminal Code, to figure out how the

Criminal Code responds to this particular group of offenders.

I’m not sure of the exact situation faced in other

prov­inces, but I have read about — for example, in Alberta, in

Edmonton — concerns about very similar issues to what we face in British

Columbia, which makes me think that there are aspects of this that are

national — and certainly in large centres in Ontario as well. The

national retail council has raised issues with me that they say are

consistent nationally, so it may be necessary, and I think that it would

behoove the federal government to have a look at this.

The challenge, and the member’s question is, frankly, from my

perspective…. Look at any one of these provisions and say: “Why wouldn’t

you have a process where someone could refer over to a judge to

consider?” But the effect on the front lines for this group has not been

positive.

When I engage with the federal Justice Minister, I’ve raised this

issue. He’s aware of it. He’s aware of my concerns, but I also share his

concerns and the Supreme Court of Canada’s concerns — at least as

articulated in these decisions — that people do have the right to be

presumed innocent. They do have the right to a fair trial in a

reasonable amount of time.

It should be the role of the province to identify and respond to

health issues proactively for people, whether or not they’re involved in

the criminal justice system and, certainly, before they’re involved in

the criminal justice system.

I appreciate the opportunity to put on the record my perspective

that there is an opportunity for the federal government to support our

work here. I will say that it has been a challenge to get the federal

government to take up our Criminal Code recommendations. Whether it’s on

prolific offenders, on money laundering or on the Jordan implications of

the pandemic, it has been a challenge.

I know there’s a lot going on. However, my provincial counterparts

at our federal-provincial-territorial meetings tend to be of a mind on

some of these amendments that are needed. To the extent that I can

support the federal Attorney General in getting that time in the

Legislature to get some of these amendments done, I would like very much

to do that by putting these concerns on the record.

M. de Jong: All right, we may be getting into the meat and potatoes of this

aspect of the discussion. The Attorney and his colleagues across the

land aren’t able to say to the Supreme Court of Canada — except in a

very formal way, as part of a case — what their views are, but he can

make those views clear to the federal parliament and the person charged

with administering this, the Justice Minister there.

I’m going to press the Attorney a little bit. I thought I heard

him say he has recommended specific changes or has provided specific

recommendations around amendments to the Criminal Code as it relates to

prolific offenders. What are they?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I’ve raised with the federal Attorney General, with whom I meet

regularly — thankfully, and which I appreciate the opportunity to do —

this issue of prolific offenders, this issue of crime that we’re seeing

in downtown cores. I know that he’s aware of it. I asked that he look at

not just that issue through the Criminal Code lens, but also, and

related to some of our conversations, issues related to Jordan and the

pandemic.

One of the challenges with the pandemic was that the availability

of courtrooms was dramatically reduced for all matters, including

criminal matters. The member will be familiar with the statistic from

the urban mayors’ letter that showed an increase of 100 days for Crown

to conclude a file from somewhere like 80 days to about 180 days. It was

directly related to the availability of courtrooms, in order to be able

to conclude files.

B.C. is not the only province that has been in this situation.

With the backlog in the justice system, we do face increased Jordan

pressure, which results in increased potential that someone may be

released pending their trial, which increases the potential of not just

the perception but the reality of mayors seeing in their communities

individuals being released back into community after committing an

offence.

I’ve provided some detailed recommendations to the federal

Attorney General around Jordan timelines and around virtual hearings and

things that we can do to work through that backlog as well. All these

things are interrelated. I will also point out to the member — to the

extent that we partner with the federal government and continue to push

them on improved housing options, improved health care options for

people with mental health and addictions and supports — that that is

taking place as well. It’s not exclusively a Criminal Code push, but

that is a component of our work.

M. de Jong: The Attorney has referred back quickly and specifically to Jordan,

and, fair enough. I think I understand the linkage he has referred to

between the strict timelines imposed by the Supreme Court of Canada and

the challenge posed by the pandemic. I understand that. I’d be

interested to know what those recommendations are, and whether he’d be

prepared to share them, either with the committee or myself.

To be fair, the conversation we’ve had has been about how changes

in the jurisprudence and the federal government’s view of these matters

have intersected and coalesced into the presentation of Bill C-75, which

introduces some other concepts. As it relates to judicial interim

release, it talks about vulnerable populations. I don’t know who the

Prosecution Service deems vulnerable populations, but it suggests, in

the Criminal Code, that the approach prosecutors take will be influenced

by whether or not they are dealing with someone deemed to be from a

vulnerable population.

Does the Attorney General agree with that? Is there a policy in

place now determining, for the Prosecution Service at least, who is in a

vulnerable population? How is it influencing the decisions? Is it

influencing decisions, for a prolific offender, about whether a decision

is made to seek detention? I always say “seek detention,” because I get

the fact that it’s not the ultimate decision of the prosecution branch

but of the judicial branch.

The Attorney has talked about the complicating features of C-75,

and I’m obviously pressing him a little more. He said he’s made

submissions to the federal government about timelines arising out of

Jordan. Okay, I hope he’ll share those. He doesn’t have to do it right

now, but I hope he’ll undertake to share those with me.

[4:40 p.m.]

Apparently, some things in C-75 have made the task of preserving

public safety more difficult. I’d like — the community leaders would

like — to know what those things are, what those amendments are, and how

the Attorney is seeking the agreement of the federal government to

change or eliminate those things.

Hon. D. Eby: There are a number of policies related to vulnerable people.

There’s a policy related to children and vulnerable youth. There’s a

policy related to intimate partner violence. There’s a policy related to

sexual offences against adults, and there’s a policy related to

vulnerable victims