Hansard Blues

Committee of the Whole –

Section A

Draft Report of Debates

The Honourable Raj Chouhan, Speaker

4th Session, 42nd Parliament

Monday, October

30, 2023

Afternoon Sitting

Draft Transcript — Terms of Use

PROCEEDINGS IN THE

DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC

CONSUMPTION OF

ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

A) on Bill 34; R. Leonard in the chair.

The Chair: Good afternoon, Members. I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 34, Restricting Public

Consumption of Illegal Substances Act, to order.

On clause 1.

E. Sturko: In clause 1, I'm wondering if the definition of "workplace" includes hospitals and

long-term-care facilities.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Yes.

E. Sturko: I thank the member for the answer.

I just want to make sure…. In terms of this legislation and the ability for police

to enforce this particular bill…. I had an opportunity to speak with health care workers

over the past several weeks, and one of the issues that they brought forward was drug

use within hospital rooms –– for example, nurses taking bed sheets getting stuck with

uncapped needles, multiple incidents of nurses having to go to the ER after being

exposed to large concentrations of fentanyl smoke and other drug smoke.

Then they felt that they were not supported, necessarily, always, in reporting that

due to, I guess, a culture of not wanting the stigmatization — which we get. But,

also, we want to make sure that health care workers are protected in their place where

they're doing their work.

For example, can the minister please clarify…? If there is a workplace incident in

something like a hospital, as it is defined as a workplace, how does this particular

legislation apply? Will, then, the police be called? Is this a matter that could be

dealt with by security, or how can we best protect health care workers who are actually

at a great risk of being exposed to drug residue?

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: In terms of this legislation, it is primarily for outside, in public spaces. Inside

a hospital, the hospital has the authority to set its own policies and rules and regulations

about what activities can take place within the hospital. So if they said no drug

use in the hospital, they absolutely have the authority to do that.

E. Sturko: I thank the minister for the answer. So then, would it be the Trespass Act that applied?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. Yes, it would be. Inside the hospital,

it would be the Trespass Act that could be applied.

E. Sturko: I thank the Solicitor General for the response. In developing the decriminalization

proposal, did the government complete a former jurisdictional review?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

My answer to the member's question would be that I believe that Mental Health and

Addictions looked at what we are proposing in terms of decriminalization. But the

purpose of this bill is not that. The purpose of this bill is about regulating drug

use in public spaces.

E. Sturko: I thank the Solicitor General for the response.

In the process for decriminalization, one of the things that was going to be looked

at, though, was a consultation with communities, obviously to look at what the impacts

of decriminalization might be and to also allow for communities to understand what

public drug use might look like, what decriminalization would look like for their

particular communities.

That would be an opportunity, I would think, for, at that time, the Ministry of Mental

Health…. Even relevant to this particular legislation and relevant to the Ministry

of Public Safety would be where to move people on to. For example — we'll speak about

this later in another clause — when people are asked to leave a park or an area where

drug use is forbidden, where those individuals could go.

During the formation of this piece of legislation, what type of, I guess, information-gathering

from communities who have already seen negative impacts was done for this particular

bill?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

We had two sets of quite robust consultations with both UBCM and local government.

The focus of those consultations was to understand where they were most concerned

about areas involving public drug use. So it was very much about listening and discussing

with them and hearing their main concerns about what areas of their communities they

were concerned about in terms of public drug use.

E. Sturko: UBCM was, like, a month ago.

So a two-parter, a two-part question. Was the legislation already drafted prior to

UBCM discussions having taken place? Did the minister's staff meet directly with Campbell

River, Nelson, Kamloops or any other jurisdiction of the province that put forward

bylaws to deal with some of the public disorder from decriminalization? Did they take

into account the experiences and where those communities wanted to go as part of this

legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The member mentioned Campbell River, Kamloops and…? Did you mention a third community?

E. Sturko: I said Nelson.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Nelson. Okay, thanks.

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

I can tell the member that all three communities were part and parcel of the consultations.

They took place in July, so before the legislation was drafted. I can also tell the

member that….

I can't remember if I met with Campbell River during UBCM. I'm pretty sure I did.

I definitely met personally with the communities of Nelson and Kamloops, not only

at UBCM but also prior to UBCM.

E. Sturko: I thank the Solicitor General for the response.

Can he provide an estimate of when the police training will be completed, regarding

the new legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

The training is under development, and it will be complete before the implementation.

The implementation is being done by regulation.

E. Sturko: Is there a timeline for that work to be completed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We're targeting early December.

E. Sturko: Regarding the exemption order, can the minister please confirm…? Does that order have

supremacy over this bill? In the meantime, until the regulation brings this legislation

into force, then the second exemption order that was granted in September — that's

still in existence until December. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you for the question.

The exemption will continue. It continues regardless of when the bill comes into force.

E. Sturko: Just seeking to clarify whether or not police maintain their full discretion to enforce

the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act until this bill comes into force.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It's both until the bill comes into force and after the bill comes into force.

[2:55 p.m.]

E. Sturko: Can you clarify? So after the bill comes into force, the police will still have full

discretion, in areas excluded from CDSA exemption, to enforce the CDSA within those

areas? Is that what you…?

Sorry, I'll clarify again. What I understand you to say is that the police officers'

discretion in B.C. to enforce the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act in areas where

the exemptions no longer apply — parks, playgrounds, business doorways, swimming holes,

all that, the whole thing…. They will have discretion right now to enforce the Controlled

Drugs and Substances Act, including possession of a controlled substance of 2.5 grams

or less. If they chose to do that, probably not going to get charges from Crown, just

saying.

Then after this bill comes into force by regulation in December, what the minister

had said was that they still have the full discretion to charge under the CDSA. Will

that include charges for possession of a controlled substance under the CDSA in those

areas?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes.

E. Sturko: What kind of public awareness campaign is the government planning in order to implement

this bill? Will there be funding for signage in areas where consumption of illegal

substances is expressly not permitted?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We'd be working with local governments around awareness at that local level. But it's

also very much an opportunity, and obviously, part and parcel of the police training

and education around this, as it's a way for police to engage and to inform about

what the changes and the policies are.

E. Sturko: I would have hoped to see a more robust rollout, considering that the idea is that

we want to not create stigma for individuals. We want to not have to increase the

amount of police engagement for people. That was one of the main cruxes of the argument

of stigmatization for individuals, that they shouldn't be getting hassled by the police.

I find it would be quite disappointing if the main idea of this government to educate

the public, particularly people that probably don't watch the news, probably don't

watch question period — particularly the unhoused; probably not big fans of question

period — or people that are in vulnerable positions, probably not having very good

access to information about changing legislation and laws.

[3:00 p.m.]

I'll start with one question, and we can move on to the second.

The first one is: will police, given the fact that now police would be expected to

be educating the public in parks, playgrounds, swimming pools, outside of businesses,

outside of hospitals, outside of workplaces…? Will the Solicitor General and the Ministry

of Public Safety be increasing police resources, number of officers, to complete all

this educational process?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

I just want to make it clear: I did not say any of that stuff, Member. What I said

was that police will be working with local governments, and I'm more than happy to

expand on that.

What police asked for was a tool to be able to move people along but also to engage

with them. That's what I was referring to. I am not expecting police to be going out

all over the place looking for people. That's not what this is about.

There are lots of organizations that work with people who have addiction issues and

drug users, for example, who are already well aware of the changes that are taking

place, being able to provide information. Government is working with local government

so that they are aware of the changes and make changes and may decide on information

in terms of specific places that they're concerned about in their own communities.

So there's a whole range in the way information will be communicated to those who

are likely to be impacted by the changes being brought forward in this bill.

The Chair: Just a reminder to speak through the Chair.

E. Sturko: I thank the Solicitor General for the answer.

Is there a formal campaign or a formal working agreement that is part and parcel…?

For example, the minister indicated that there's police training that is associated

to this bill. Is there actually, then, a communications strategy and a full education

component that will be part of dealing, as the minister said, with municipalities

and non-profits and other organizations? And further to that, will they be provided

with any financial resources to ensure that these changes are communicated clearly

and widely?

[3:05 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

When the legislation is proclaimed and the regulations are in place, communications

will involve working with those groups, whether they be on the ground, providing services,

or whether they're at the local level, in what's the most effective way to get information

out to the community about the changes that are coming because of the legislation.

E. Sturko: So is that a formal process that's already been planned for and budgeted for?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I'll come back to what I said a moment ago, which is that we'll work with, as I said,

local government. We work with organizations on the ground, developing fact-based

materials that they can distribute. And it may well…. NGOs on the ground will have

a different way of approaching than, let's say, a local government, which has their

resources in terms of communicating changes that are happening within their community.

And the same thing will be with groups on the ground working with vulnerable populations.

What's critical about this legislation is that police asked for this in terms of it

as a tool to be able to move people along, and local governments to address specific

areas in their community that they had concerns about.

E. Sturko: The

definitions for playground, spray pool, wading pool, skate park…. They're described

as having the same definition as the exemption order does. Can the minister confirm

that once this bill is enforced, whether or not possession of any amount of drugs

in these places where children and families gather and play will be allowed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question.

Possession will not be allowed in any of the areas mentioned in the exemption, either

before or after the passage of this bill.

E. Sturko: I suspect I can come back to that question, then, later on, probably in clause 4.

I'd like to discuss a little bit further, then, when officers will do a full discretion

enforcement of the CDSA and when they will be enforcing this piece of legislation,

given that…. If possession itself is now no longer exempt in these areas, that means

not consuming but even possessing is now unlawful in British Columbia in areas as

described by these amendments to the letter of agreement between the government of

Canada and the government of British Columbia.

[3:10 p.m.]

Under the CDSA, possession is no longer allowed. This bill deals only with consumption,

so we'll need to have more clarification, which we'll come back to. I'm looking forward

to it.

Can the minister specify what's included and not included under the definition of

"workplace," specifically about public restrooms? In my experience, both as a police

officer and as a person that uses the washroom, I've often encountered drug use. But

you know what? There are people working also to maintain those washrooms. I want to

understood a little bit more clearly about the definition and how this legislation

impacts that.

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

For example, in a park, a public washroom would be a no-go area, because it is in

a park.

S. Furstenau: I just have a general question for the minister. Can he just explain what he hopes

and expects the outcomes of this legislation to be?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it's primarily to provide police with a tool to direct people away from what

are, in most communities, deemed to be inappropriate places for public drug use.

[3:15 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: So providing police with a tool to direct people away from places that are inappropriate

for public drug use. Can the Solicitor General speak to what are appropriate places

for public drug use?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it could be to direct people to an overdose prevention site, a safe injection

site but, just as importantly, away from places such as have been outlined — parks,

places where kids gather, places where families take kids, for example. They're just

not appropriate places for public drug use.

S. Furstenau: If an appropriate place is a safe injection site, a safe consumption site or an overdose

prevention site and that is a location that's not available in the region where the

police are trying to enforce this legislation, what are they expected to do?

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

The reason this bill is here is because of concerns about public drug use in inappropriate

places. Much like other forms of substance use, a lot of it is where there is a problem.

In most cases, where I expect it to be applied is where families gather, where kids

gather, where parents don't want to expose their kids to inappropriate drug use.

Police have a whole range of priorities they have to deal with. It's not like all

of a sudden they're going to be driving around looking for someone who is in a location

and is using, but there's nobody around.

I think the focus is going to be where there are problem areas. Those have been identified

by local communities, in terms of why they want the legislation to be in place. It's

why the exemption contains those areas where you cannot use and is specifically outlined

— also, businesses that are maybe having a problem.

That's the way I expect the law to be enforced, with discretion and common sense.

[3:20 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: I would say there's probably consensus in terms of the goal for people using drugs

that they have a safe place to do so, that there be access to places where using particularly

the drugs that are on the street, the illicit drugs on the street right now, which

are very deadly and kill six people a day in British Columbia. There's consensus that

it should be the goal that people have a place where it is appropriate to consume

substances. The challenge here is that those places don't exist in every community.

Particularly, I think the number of safe inhalation sites in B.C. is 19, and 65 percent

of the drug toxicity deaths according to the last coroner's report were from inhalation.

How is that reality informing legislation that is saying that we don't want to see

drug use in inappropriate places, yet functionally, appropriate places aren't available,

particularly to the thousands and thousands of people in B.C. who are currently unhoused?

How do we solve that problem with legislation that says, "Now you can't use in inappropriate

places," yet appropriate locations have not been provided?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. It is an important question. It's one that

we have been working on since being elected in 2017. At that time, there were only,

I think, two overdose prevention sites in 2016. Now there are 47. Those are bricks-and-mortar

ones.

At the same time, there are other ways in which we reach out to people, through mobile

centres, for example — things of that nature. It's scaling up. That's what we have

been doing, and we intend to continue to do that. It's one of the things that…. We

have been working with communities on the importance of being able to deal with the

issue, to deal with overdose prevention by the provision of — and this is getting

outside the scope of this legislation — and through other ministries' initiatives

on the addiction side.

This specific bill is to deal with issues raised by local communities and also to

respond to concerns by police in terms of their having the tool to be able to get

people to move away from an inappropriate place.

E. Sturko: Just to build on what my colleague from the Third Party said, the Leader of the Third

Party. There was a federal letter of requirement with caveats to what was required

for the decriminalization pilot to proceed in British Columbia. I believe it's

section

No. 4 of that letter, which stated that this government must — not should or not someday

— provide access to increased health and social services.

[3:25 p.m.]

Overdose prevention sites, supervised consumption sites would fall into the category

of either a social service or a health care service, depending on what camp you sit

in.

So given this new legislation, the scope of it is that we are asking police officers

not to arrest people, not to ask for charges or make a case under the CDSA but to

move people on to places where it would then be deemed appropriate for them to use

substances that are exempt from the CDSA at this time.

How is it that this government is meeting the expectations of the letter of agreement

under decriminalization when this legislation is moving people on to areas that simply,

in every community, do not exist?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question, which I would say is more of an estimates question than

any

section in this bill. But I would say that's why there's over $1 billion in the

Mental Health and Addictions Ministry to deal with mental health and addictions. It's

also why, as I said a moment ago, the number of overdose prevention sites is being

built on and will continue to be built on.

E. Sturko: I thank the Solicitor General for the response.

Regardless of the amount of money that's been budgeted, the reality is that at this

time, we are thinking of having some legislation here that's going to be deeply impactful

to people who use drugs. Setting aside the concern for safety that individuals have

with their children going to parks, playgrounds, other places where they've encountered

things like drug residue, uncapped needles, the rest of it, we're talking about six

people a day whose lives are at risk in British Columbia, six people a day who die.

We are dealing now with a government that's failed to meet its letter of requirement.

It does absolutely have to do with this piece of legislation, because police have

the expectation now to direct people away from the parks, to direct people away from

forbidden places.

What, in the training that will be set out for police, will the police be told about

where to send people and what to do in terms of giving direction for individuals where

safe consumption locations are not available?

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's a number of points I just want to address.

First, in areas of communities that the member mentioned where there may not be an

overdose prevention site, for example, police can advise of a place in the community

where it would not be illegal or inappropriate to use drugs. That'll vary, obviously,

from community to community, and they know their local community.

I also think it's important to point out that we are working with local governments,

in partnership, in terms of the need to establish overdose prevention sites with local

communities. We have been expanding the number, in terms of the province.

At the same time, Health Canada — I know that the letter gets mentioned — has told

us that they are satisfied with the progress that we are making in terms of meeting

their requirements that they laid out in their letter.

S. Furstenau: We've heard a lot about safety for members of the public. Does the minister consider

people who use drugs members of the public?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Of course we do.

S. Furstenau: In hearing about what are appropriate and inappropriate spaces…. Would a residential

alleyway be considered an appropriate space?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the member is asking do I think the police will be directing people to alleyways,

no, I don't.

S. Furstenau: So in absence of a safe consumption site, can the Solicitor General identify what

would be considered an appropriate space?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I expect police will take a number of approaches, obviously, depending on the community

that they live in. One will be to direct to, if there are services, overdose prevention

sites, for example.

The other…. As I said a moment ago, all communities are different. Police know their

communities. They'll be able to direct people to areas that are not going to be frequented

by kids and families, or doorways of businesses. That's what I expect will take place.

E. Sturko: So does that mean that police in communities, then, can decide that any place that's

frequented by children and families is not a good place for consumption of drugs,

which would actually vastly expand the number of places that shouldn't include drug

use?

[3:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said, police understand their community, and this legislation is focused very

much in terms of what communities identified as their areas of concern. That's very

much where families and kids gather, such as playgrounds, for example, and parks and

areas where they have to move around, such as bus stops, where, you know, they're

standing and waiting for a bus, for public transportation. That's what this is focused

on.

Police have the ability to direct people –– "Here's where an overdose prevention site

is," or "Here are some community services that you may want to access" –– and, at

the same time, knowing their community, going: "Hey, there are other areas which would

be more appropriate to be using drugs than in a public space."

I think it's one of those things. I think common sense and discretion will be the

order of how police use the legislation.

E. Sturko: I appreciate the answer. I know that it's probably a little bit frustrating, but we're

talking about a wide range of discretion. Now I'm understanding more fully that police

still have that discretion to enforce the entire CDSA, which, you know, will lead

to several more questions later on.

Now we're asking police to make that

interpretation about where to send people. I

understand that if there are services, for example, a shelter, if there is a friendship

centre or another community service and that person could go to that or…. Let's say

it's at nighttime, though, and they're supposed to direct someone to, using the minister's

words, a more appropriate place to use drugs. Why has this government chosen and the

ministry chosen not to define what is meant by a more appropriate place for drug use?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question and what the member is asking. I think it comes down to

a couple of things.

[3:40 p.m.]

One, every community is different. Some communities are very dense; some communities

are spread out. Some communities have lots of parks, not all used; some communities

have a few. Some have huge parks; some have small parks. Some are rural; others are

urban. To try and define that is not necessarily an easy thing to do.

Is this perfect? No. What we're trying to do is to balance the approach here, to balance

the recognition that there's that diversity and to address issues raised by local

communities.

The police have discretion. They have discretion on a whole range of our laws. A lot

of times it's when…. Enforcement is often when public safety is an issue, for example.

I'll give an example. The speed limit is 50. They don't usually start ticketing….

I mean, if there's a rash of incidents, then they'll step up patrols. They enforce

and start ticketing, often, at 60 and above.

Police have a whole range of priorities that they have to deal with on a day-to-day

basis. But if they see that there's an issue in an area, they want a tool to be able

to deal with it. That's what this legislation is about. It is striking that balance.

At the same time, all the work that's going on with the other things that address….

Because this is a broad spectrum issue that requires a whole range of approaches in

dealing with it, work is being done in those areas, in terms of increasing the number

of overdose prevention sites, working with local government to ensure that the services

are there that people are able to access.

S. Furstenau: I think we've established a bunch of things. There aren't enough of those services

in communities across B.C. We've established that "appropriate" hasn't been defined

in the bill.

Interestingly, I talked to a bylaw officer who said that from her point of view as

a bylaw officer out in the community, that would actually have been the useful tool

of legislation — to actually have legislation that says: "Here are the appropriate….

Here are the places."

I've talked to bylaw officers and RCMP who feel…. Essentially, they don't think this

legislation is going to particularly achieve much. What it might achieve, though,

is, particularly for unhoused people who may be choosing to use drugs in the public

purview as a way to try not to die…. It might have the result of pushing those people

out of sight.

That's the reality. People are choosing to use drugs in public spaces because without

the benefit of the service of a safe consumption site, other members of the public

are the people that might prevent them from dying. So to say: "Here are places in

the public that are inappropriate…." Ultimately, it seems like the intention of the

legislation, and maybe the Solicitor General will have another explanation of this,

is to move this out of sight.

We know that that is where people are dying in this province. Most people who die

from toxic drugs are dying in their own homes, out of sight. But people who are homeless

have very few options available to them. To have a piece of legislation that says

to those people, in particular: "We just don't want to see. Move this out of sight…."

In year 7 of a public health emergency, what message is that sending to the people

who are at risk of dying from the toxic drugs on our streets?

[3:45 p.m.]

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

I'm really clear: this isn't about pushing people out of sight. It's recognizing that

yes, there is a toxic drug crisis, and yes, government is doing everything it can

to deal with it.

Part and parcel of that is also recognizing that the public has concerns too. They

don't think it's appropriate, when they take their kid to a park, that their kids

have to watch public drug use and that that's something that should be seen as normal

or something not to be concerned about. People have the right to use a public space

without having to worry about that, so that they can take their kids somewhere and

not be concerned about that.

At the same time, we understand the challenges that homeless people face. That's why,

later on in the bill, there are the regulatory powers. Some of the regulatory powers

that the regulations will be considering are how we deal with those situations. But

it's also working on a broader scale in providing the services that people need. As

I said, we've increased the number of overdose prevention sites. That's the bricks

and mortar. There are the mobile sites.

If you want what you're talking about to succeed, it's important to remember that

in order to do that, you have to have public support to do that as well. That means

understanding the public's concerns. That means understanding a family with kids and

their concerns, which are every bit as legitimate. It's striking that balance. It's

not about pushing people out of sight and saying that we don't care.

[3:50 p.m.]

We do care. That's why we've been making the investments that we've been making. That's

why we've been expanding the programs that we've been making. That's why we've been

working on the approach that we've been doing.

You also have to understand community concerns and public concerns as well. What this

bill is doing is addressing that and giving police the tool to be able to move people

from an inappropriate place.

S. Furstenau: I've been a mom for 29 years. Very proud that I've been a parent in this beautiful

province. I can't think of anywhere outside of, say, establishments that are for adults

only — bars, casinos…. There's no public space that I would think: "Oh, I can't go

there with my children. This isn't a place for me to go with my kids."

If the argument here is that we don't want children to see public drug use…. Ideally,

we have a solution for that, which is overdose prevention sites, safe consumption

sites. That's how we solve that. But if this whole thing is premised on: "Here are

some areas where there will be kids. There are appropriate areas somewhere else, but

they're not out of sight, but somehow kids won't see public drug use there…."

From my point of view, the absolute and utter failure of four decades of governments

to keep a social safety net and see people who are forced to live on the street is

what I'm concerned about. That's what kids in every community see every day. "Oh,

hey, look. Social determinants of health don't matter here. No housing for you." That's

what I'd be concerned about.

I'm just really stymied. Which part of the public area am I not going to with my kids

so that they won't see public drug use?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's questions.

I'll just reinforce that we're trying to strike a balance — and it's a fine balance

— between…. You're right. Kids do go everywhere. But there are also purpose-built

places where kids specifically go and families specifically go and people specifically

go: bus stops, for example. And it's not just kids. It's seniors and people with disabilities,

for example, who feel intimidated when they see something going on there.

That's what we hear, and that's the feedback we get. That's why bus stops are included

in this legislation. It's the same with purpose-built places such as parks and skateboard

areas, facilities where families and kids tend to gather.

Are there going to be areas where kids go? Yeah, but they're going through. They're

not congregating there for a specific purpose. It is a balance, and it comes back

to the overall approach being taken.

[3:55 p.m.]

It's legislation. It's health. It's the mental health and addictions. It's all of

those things. It is about continuing to increase the number of facilities that are

available, whether it's overdose prevention sites or whether it's safe injection sites

— and different modes in which those services are delivered, whether it's through

bricks and mortar, whether it's through mobile units — depending on the nature of

the community or what's required in terms of services. It's all of those things.

That's why we have been ramping those things up, and we'll continue to do that. I

come back to how this legislation is about striking that balance.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

E. Sturko: I do have more questions, but can I please ask for a short recess?

The Chair: We stand recessed for ten minutes.

The committee recessed from 3:56 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.

[R. Leonard in the chair.]

The Chair: I call the meeting back to order.

E. Sturko: Can the minister define what's meant by "must consult" in clause 2? What is the exact

process that's required under this clause?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It means that if the local community is going to put in place a bylaw, then they have

to consult with their local health authority or a public health official and say:

"Here's what we're planning on doing. What do you think?"

[4:10 p.m.]

E. Sturko: Are there criteria, though, in terms of what they will be looking for? What are they

going to be, I guess, analyzing in a given bylaw? Is there something that, for example,

would be set out that municipalities who are considering a bylaw would be able to

follow in terms of the expectations of the health authorities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No. It's already a fairly well-understood process for local government that they're

required to consult whenever they're dealing with a public health issue. A bylaw would

be that.

E. Sturko: Can a regional health board or a regional medical health officer make requirements

of their own? Specifically, could they require changes to a proposed bylaw before

it could be formally adopted?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They can't make requirements, but they could certainly suggest.

E Sturko: Could regional health boards or medical officers responsible for public health matters

within the area of local government effectively veto a potential bylaw that proposes

to regulate, prohibit or impose requirements in relation to the consumption of an

illegal substance in public?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No.

E. Sturko: Can the provincial government veto any potential bylaw or make requirements for changes

to a proposed bylaw before it can be adopted?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's no requirement for them to submit the bylaw to us. We don't review their bylaws.

E. Sturko: Whether or not, for example, a medical health officer for a region agrees with the

outcomes or impacts of a potential bylaw on drug users, there is no requirement, though,

for municipalities drafting bylaws to, essentially, change their bylaw due to input

by the health authority. Is that correct?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be no, but what we have seen is that local governments often take

into account the views of public health officials and often make adjustments to their

proposed bylaw.

E. Sturko: Is a local government able to proceed with proposing and adopting bylaws not specific

to consumption but instead related to drug paraphernalia and drug possession in public

areas without consulting?

[4:15 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: Regardless of the bylaw involving public health, they have to consult. Also, if the

bylaw included paraphernalia, that would be included as well.

S. Furstenau: Could the Solicitor General just describe what the consultation process will look

like?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. There is a well-understood process for local government

when they're making changes to a bylaw that involves public health. They're consulted

on it. It's doing it early in the process. It's not, you know, bringing it to council

and, "Oh, let's now…." No, it's well before that. That's the approach that local governments

would be taking.

S. Furstenau: How is the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act action plan being considered

in this consultation plan?

[4:20 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There was a fair amount of consultation with the First Nations that included letters

to all the First Nations, First Nations Health Authority, First Nations Leadership

Council, the justice council, friendship centres and Métis Nation.

S. Furstenau: Just for clarification, the consultation process consisted of letters to those bodies?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There were letters that went out to all the nations, and those organizations had in-person

consultations with….

S. Furstenau: Can the Solicitor General describe how those consultations went, in terms of what

input those organizations had into this legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I can tell the member there was a wide

range of opinion from First Nations and First Nations organizations on this issue

and on the legislation. Some wanted a very permissive approach in terms of public

drug use, and others were absolutely opposed to any form of public drug use.

This legislation, and the input that we received, strikes a balance between the different

views that we received in terms of the consultation and the input.

S. Furstenau: The Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs have come out in opposition to this legislation. Can

the minister speak to the concerns that they have raised?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member. I think you can sum up their concerns in

three areas. Ensuring that there's not a disproportionate impact on Indigenous people.

They're concerned there. Concerns about services — housing, for example, and other

social supports. And wanting to ensure that it's progressive enforcement, as opposed

to a punishment-oriented approach.

[4:25 p.m.]

S. Furstenau: How does this legislation achieve any of those things?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for her question. I'll respond this way.

First off, in terms of the issue of services, that's outside the scope of this legislation.

That's work that's underway in other ministries — some of those issues that I touched

on. That's where that's taking place. That's where there's a significant amount of

work that is underway in terms of expanding the provision of services that are available.

In terms of this not being about punishment…. Police have said this — that they don't

want this to be about punishment. It's not about ticketing. It's not about seizing.

It's about compliance. That's the approach that is being taken.

I understand the concerns of the UBCIC. That's why we want to make sure that those

things have been addressed. But, also, other nations…. I met with the nations in the

Okanagan, a number of them, and they made it clear that they want punishment, that

they want confiscation. They have zero tolerance for drug use, and they want more

enforcement.

So what you're outlining and what I'm outlining reflects the diversity of opinion

that we receive in terms of the consultation process. It comes back to striking a

balance.

But we also do want to make sure, absolutely, that this legislation does not disproportionately

impact Indigenous people. That's why we will…. Later on there will be regulations

that, no doubt, we will get to on that section.

There was a fair amount, a significant amount of consultation that took place with

First Nations under requirements under DRIPA.

S. Furstenau: I wanted to put the response from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs on the record. On

October 5, 2023, they released a statement basically saying that they call on government….

"UBCIC calls on the government to instead address the interlinked, spiralling crises

of housing, affordability, addiction and mental health in a holistic, systems-wide

and compassionate manner.

"The legislation effectively recriminalizes the most marginalized people who use drugs

— those who are unhoused and do not have access to harm reduction services — and sends

a stigmatizing message that people who use drugs must hide out of sight, even if that

means death.

"First Nations people are chronically and drastically overrepresented in housing insecurity,

homelessness and fatal overdoses, dying at 5.9 times the rate of other B.C. residents,

and will be disproportionately harmed by this violent legislation. Despite this, the

legislation was not co-developed with title and rights holders and is in clear violation

of the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples.

[4:30 p.m.]

"Over seven years after declaring the overdose crisis a public health emergency, the

NDP is prioritizing the comfort of the majority over the survival of people who use

drugs, rather than addressing the root causes of the crisis."

Just to put on the record part of the statement from the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs

in response to this legislation.

In particular, for the Solicitor General, what does he say to the Union of B.C. Indian

Chiefs indicating that the legislation was not co-developed with the rights and title

holders and is in clear violation of the United Nations declaration on the rights

of Indigenous peoples?

[M. Dykeman in the chair.]

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

Was the legislation co-developed? No. Was there significant consultation? Yes. Does

the legislation represent the balance that existed on the significant differences

that were very much apparent in terms of the consultation that took place?

I mean, the UBCIC letter is one point of view. There were many other points of view.

What's important is…. What is raised in that letter are all things that we are working

on in terms of the root causes, in terms of poverty, in terms of housing, which are

laid out, and, at the same time, also ensuring that that diversity of opinion that

exists in First Nations communities is part and parcel of the balance that we have

struck with this legislation.

One of the important things, in terms of being able to provide the services and being

able to expand the services that are required, is that there is public support. There

is attention being paid to public concern. That's what this legislation does.

The Chair: Member.

S. Furstenau: Thank you, Madam Chair. Welcome to the chair.

I just want to pick up on — the Solicitor General has mentioned this a couple of times

— public support and striking a balance.

We've been in a declared public health emergency for seven years. Shouldn't evidence

and data and experts be really informing a policy and legislative response to this?

[4:35 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

What I'll say is this: of course public policy experts, health experts, the full range

of experts in the field…. Their views and their expertise are important in the development

of public policy, and that's taken into account. But what's also important is that

we are a democracy. We're not a technocracy where public policy is decided by experts

and then that's it. We're a democracy where the public opinion matters as well.

If government is not also listening to public opinion or public concerns –– that's

a better way of putting it –– then what can often happen is those who would take,

instead of two steps forward, take us ten steps backward.

We've seen in other places…. If government is not paying attention or addressing concerns

in the way that the public goes, "Okay. They're trying to strike a balance here. They're

listening to what we've got to say; they're listening to dealing with some of our

concerns," then those who would take us all the way back and throw everything that

has been worked on by public policy experts –– gets thrown out the window. We've seen

that in other jurisdictions. One only has to look south of the border to see that.

I come back to this: there was a significant amount of work gone into this. This is

about striking a balance dealing with, I think, legitimate public concerns raised

by communities and a way to address those, and, at the same time, ensuring that all

the other work that we're doing in dealing with the toxic drug crisis, in dealing

with issues of homelessness, in dealing with issues of poverty, that all of those

things continue.

S. Furstenau: We actually had an extraordinary opportunity for public input on this issue with the

all-party Health Committee. And, in fact, there was more public input to that committee

than any other committee. More people gave input. The public gave an enormous amount

of input. We heard everything from the chief medical health officer and the coroner

to people who use drugs and everything in between. We heard from RCMP, enforcement

agencies. We heard from social services agencies. We heard from people giving addictions

treatment programs. We had months and months of input from the public. A very, I would

say, democratic exercise.

We invited the public into the conversation, and they were very keen to be part of

it. The vast majority of that input that we got day in and day out was focused on

harm reduction, how to prevent people from dying, was focused on listening to and

working with people in community, was focused on how to ensure that we have regulated

treatment in this province, which we don't, which is something that has been called

for since 2016, not only by the coroner, but by the public over and over again because

we have the Wild West of addictions treatment in this province.

[4:40 p.m.]

There were a lot of recommendations; I think 37 in all. The Clerk might set me straight

on this, but I think it was about 37, and that was an example of exactly what the

Solicitor General speaks to in the importance of a democracy. We did that. How much

did that report and those recommendations inform this legislation?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I'll say this. My colleagues in Mental Health and Addictions….

A lot of that report is forming the basis of the work that they're doing in terms

of the provision of services that are required, changes that are required, the harm

reduction approach, all of those things.

But I also know this. No one appeared before your committee and said: "Oh, we're in

favour of unlimited public drug use."

S. Furstenau: I think there's a name for that particular logical fallacy. But anyway, we'll carry

on.

The point is that of the people who appeared in front of the committee, the vast majority

called for a significant increase to harm reduction and to ways in which people can

get the services they need. Wrap-around continuum of care…. The continuum of care

was the first recommendation, recognizing the social determinants of health as guiding

principles.

This is the first piece of legislation in the wake of that committee, and there certainly

wasn't any recommendation in there along these lines. The committee recommendations

were very much focused on creating that continuum of care that does not currently

exist in this province. We heard that over and over and over again.

This comes back to the conversation we were having on clause 1. We don't have appropriate

spaces for people to use drugs in this province. We have lots of inappropriate spaces;

we don't have appropriate spaces. It is sorely lacking, and we heard about that over

and over again.

My question is: as the consultation goes forward, according to the legislation, buried

here in my papers…. Before considering a proposed bylaw to regulate, prohibit or impose

requirements in relation to the consumption of an illegal substance in public, clause

2 of this act, will the input from not just the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, but also

the Canadian Mental Health Association…? Many other groups have come out with very

serious concerns. Will the recommendations in the report that was done by the Health

Committee be informing those consultations?

[4:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: That report continues to inform work done within the various ministries. I have no

doubt that it would –– you know, consultations that take place, again — continue to

inform there.

The legislation that we have before us is a result of public concern. As I mentioned

earlier, it's important to listen to that. I know that the committee heard from a

whole range of people. I know that the members…. I think all of us are proud of the

work that that committee did. But I also know that local governments raised a concern.

They're just individuals, but they're speaking on behalf of their communities. They

raised concerns. We are hearing public concerns.

One of the important things is just…. When something's brought in, it doesn't necessarily

stay static. One of the things is to be able to respond and to adapt to concerns that

you're hearing and to be able to show that you're listening. This is what….

I come back to the use of that word "balance," because that's what this is about.

It's about recognizing all of those things that we need to have in place. Many of

them weren't in place, but many of them now are in place or becoming in place and

increasing in place.

It's the investments being made by the province. It's working with local government

on identifying what services need to be in place in their particular communities.

It's all of those things. That's the approach that we've been taking, and that's the

approach that we will continue to take.

S. Furstenau: I quite vividly remember the Union of B.C. Municipalities 2022. The concerns brought

forward by local governments then were that they were unclear on the framework of

decriminalization and how that was going to be rolling out. Then, in 2023, much of

what I heard and had conversations about and continue to, particularly in my own community,

was the need for funding services that the communities are actually presenting. "Here

are the services we need," and, "We need stable and reliable funding to ensure that

they are continuing."

For example, The Village project in Cowichan, housing 34 people, providing wraparound

supports, has greatly improved the conditions in that neighbourhood. The crime rate

has gone down 17 percent. The people who have gotten the housing –– many of them have

gotten into employment, and a number have gone on to other forms of housing. It's

been a marked success, data- and evidence-informed in that success. Yet the local

government has had to push at every corner to try to get reliable funding from B.C.

Housing to keep that going. That's the kind of concern that I heard.

I think this is one of the things that, as policy-makers and legislators, there's

a hierarchy of evidence. Anecdotal — what we hear is one part of evidence. But of

course, we also want to be informed by stronger foundations of evidence in decision-making.

Is there data around public drug use, public drug consumption in these particular

areas that informed this?

[4:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. There isn't a baseline in terms of public drug use, but

what I can tell you is that we hear more and more from local communities –– MLAs,

for example — bringing concerns forward. The public bring concerns forward. Local

government brings concerns forward. At UBCM 2023, it was very much a topic at the

meetings that took place with a number of ministries.

I know that in my own community, the local council raised concerns about two areas,

in particular. Calls to my office from a particular area of my community….

All indicated concern about public drug use. Is there a baseline on that? No. Is it

anecdotal? No, it's not. It's the lived experience of people in neighbourhoods in

various communities that raise: "Hey, this is what we're seeing." Local government

is saying: "This is where the shortcoming is." Then police tell us where the shortcoming

is as well.

That's part and parcel…. That's part of how the approach, in terms of the legislation,

was developed. They said it's responding to public concerns.

S. Furstenau: Here's the challenge. If there actually isn't a baseline of data right now, how will

the minister and his staff know that this legislation is successful?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I already expect to see a reduction in the number of times I'm contacted by local

government or constituents in terms of there being a problem, and being able to talk

with police saying: "Hey, we're seeing fewer of these being an issue."

S. Furstenau: I don't dispute that input from local governments and from constituents — as the minister

indicates, people with lived experience — is important. It is. Policy-making and legislation

should be informed by more than that, and it should be measured.

The first question I asked the minister this afternoon was: what's the intention of

this legislation? I wrote it down. "To provide police with tools to direct people

away from inappropriate locations for public drug use."

Now, this is going into a consult…. The clause that we're discussing right now is

about consultation with regional health boards and the medical health officers responsible

for public health matters within the area of local government.

Should that consultation, in the Solicitor General's opinion, be informed by more

than what people are saying and what people are experiencing? Should there be a level

of data and evidence that is informing that consultation? And should there be an expectation

of measuring the outcomes of this legislation?

[4:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question.

The point I make with this is…. One of the things I expect will happen…. You're having

to consult with public health officials. Public health officials will be able to say,

"Here's what we're seeing. Here's what your challenges are," and then review the bylaw

and provide input to the local government based on what they're seeing in that particular

local area.

The other point I'd make is…. This is not about criminalization; this is not about

enforcement. It's about being able to have that conversation with people. That's the

tool that police are wanting. It's not about arresting people.

Again, it comes back to that balance of what we're trying to do in terms of addressing

the toxic drug crisis as a whole and ensuring that there's continued public support

for the broad range of initiatives and measures that have been put in place. Many

of them are coming out of the all-party committee report. Others are from work that

has already been underway and in progress, work that has been undertaken over the

last number of years in expanding the options that are available for people, expanding

the treatment responses, all of those things.

That's why this legislation is written in the way that it is. That's the approach

that has been taken, and that, over the longer term, is going to what we want to see.

Is it driving down the number of deaths that we see in the toxic drug crisis?

S. Furstenau: Okay. Unless the opposition critic has more questions…. I think this might be my last

one on this particular clause.

I sat in on some of those meetings at UBCM about the concerns that local governments

have around challenges to order in their communities. I'm hearing from constituents

as well.

I'm concerned about a kind of conflating here of a health crisis and what may or may

not be criminal activity related to that. The police would surely have the tools available

to address criminal activity, breaking and entering or vandalism or any kind of public

behaviour that puts people at risk or that people feel threatened by.

The requests that I heard in the meetings that I was in weren't about legislation

like this. Again, it came back to: "We have these gaps in services in our community

and need funding, which we don't have as local governments. We don't have the funding

mechanism or the budgets to be able to fulfil what are absolutely provincial services

— health care, housing, access to mental health."

Does the minister see a risk when there's anecdotal or lived experience information

guiding decisions like this — that there is a conflation of what is a health issue

with what are criminal issues?

[5:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I don't think it is about conflating the two. The reality is that the province does

not have the constitutional ability to legislate in the Criminal Code. What we can

do is provincial authority, and that's where the approach that we've taken is a much

more compassionate approach. It's a progressive approach. It's a way to be able to

have a conversation with people, to be able to direct them to more appropriate places,

to be able to send them, to point them to services. It's about listening to….

I fully understand the conversations that you've had with local governments in your

community at UBCM. I met, I don't know, 50-plus local governments, and the range of

issues was raised. The need for more services. That's what's been underway. This issue

that this legislation is addressing, the need for it.

I got asked earlier by the member for Surrey South about did I meet with Kamloops?

Did I meet with Nelson? Although she didn't ask, did I meet with Prince George?

The answer is, yeah, I met with Prince George. I met with Nelson. I met with Kamloops.

I met with Kelowna. I met with Penticton — outside of UBCM. I met with all of the

First Nations, the bulk of the First Nations in South Okanagan on this very issue.

It's not a case of the legislation not being informed by experts or not being informed

on the basis of these metrics or just solely on policy expertise. It's a whole range

of input, and it's a range of…. As I keep coming back to, and I think it's important,

it's about striking a balance in terms of how we deal with the challenges that communities

are facing.

Clause 2 approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Just on this, I want to stand down clauses 3 and 4. There are some questions I'm getting

clarified, so I'd like to stand those two sections down, please.

The Chair: Is the committee in agreeance of standing down clauses 3 and 4?

E. Sturko: Can we receive clarification on what parts of clause 3 are being questioned? I do

have a proposed amendment to clause 3, and perhaps it's related to my amendment.

The Chair: I'm going to go to the minister in just one moment. But just for clarification for

the member, Standing Order 84 does allow any clause to be postponed at any point.

So there is a standing order that does address that. But I will turn to the minister

to address your more specific question.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Thank you. I appreciate the concern.

I don't know what the member's amendment is, or potential…. But there is an issue,

a question, that police have had. I said I'd get back in terms of an answer, so I

want to stand down clauses 3 and 4 in their entirety.

[5:05 p.m.]

The Chair: Committee members, at this point, if there isn't agreement to stand down clauses 3

and 4, I will put it to a vote of the assembly here. Is there consent to stand down

3 and 4, or shall we go to a vote?

All right. We have unanimous consent on that. So we will be moving down to clause

Clauses 3 and 4 stood down.

On clause 5.

E. Sturko: Let me just make sure I'm all tidy here now.

Should a person be arrested, what's the next step? Is it a fine? Is it jail time?

Should they be released within 24 hours? I already know the answer to that. They'll

be released within 24 hours, unless they're remanded to custody after a JP hearing.

This kind of makes less sense now that we're not talking about clause 4 first.

Can you walk me through, Minister, what the process is, then? If a person is arrested

under another piece of legislation, whether it's the Criminal Code or whether it's

the Offence Act of B.C., what's the next step after that?

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

I'll make the following observations. First, every discussion that we've had with

police…. As I've said, this is not about criminalization. It's not about wanting to

arrest. It's about getting people to move on.

The police have discretion. We expect that this will be the exception as opposed to

the rule. Even then, one of the things that you might well see is somebody being arrested

and then, a block or two away, being unarrested. The objective has been achieved.

E. Sturko: I thank the Solicitor General for the answer. Those types of powers are things that

the police have had always under the Criminal Code — to arrest someone and then unarrest

them.

I have some further questions, though. Since we're in "Arrest without warrant," in

clause 5…. Without arresting an individual or detaining them for investigation, for

example, under the CDSA, as police would have done before, then it doesn't compel

the person to provide their identity. It doesn't allow for a police officer to do

a safety check.

[5:10 p.m.]

One of the ways in which it was beneficial, I would say, for police to be able to

identify an individual is in case that person is a missing person. Maybe they're missing

from a hospital because they didn't take their medication. They have a warrant now

saying that they should have taken it. Or maybe they're a missing person because they've

been exploited. They're on the street, and their family is looking for them.

Honestly, the likelihood of a police officer, unless it's a super small town and a

very, very well known client

Honestly, the likelihood of a police officer — unless it's a super small town and

a very, very well-known client — just recognizing the person is actually pretty slim.

The other really important component that I've been hearing more and more from the

public and from businesses and from people impacted by decriminalization are the safety

checks. When a person is arrested, they might be searched, for officers' safety reasons.

During those searches, officers often find weapons.

I can say from my own experience in policing that in just checking someone for safety,

I've found things like machetes. I never got lucky enough to find a firearm — that

would have been something I would have liked to take off the street — but bats down

sweatpants, knives, bear spray.

Without the arrest coming — except for when they fail to leave the area, so in clause

5, "Arrest without warrant" — we're missing a huge part of an opportunity to take

dangerous things off the street, to identify missing people, to even keep tabs on

the people that we're speaking with to account for the interactions that we have with

people.

Is there any discretion other than here in clause 5, "Arrest without warrant"? Are

there any means for an officer, for example, under this legislation, to identify the

person that they're in a conversation with?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's question. I'd say this. It's not intended to be a means

to other ends. It's a tool that was requested by police and local governments to be

able to enable people to move along from an inappropriate location.

[5:15 p.m.]

What we talked about earlier is how it's not about forcing people back into the shadows.

I think one of the things that's important is that police can have that conversation

with someone about any of the services, and in the course of that, be able to, you

know, probably get an understanding of some of the things the individual is facing

and maybe be able to direct them, whether it's an overdose prevention site or other

services that may be required. That's really what this legislation is about.

E. Sturko: I thank the Solicitor General for the response.

A search that ends up finding something like bear spray or a machete or a baseball

bat or a long knife or even a kitchen knife…. The safety search is not a means for

going hunting or fishing or looking for those items. It's just incidental.

But it's actually been a very important part of public safety, being able to see,

for example, a person who is using drugs or in possession of drugs in a very obvious

way in public, being able to detain that person for investigation under the CDSA.

Then, as a part of their detention, they are compelled to provide their name. Then

we'll know if they have warrants, for example; know if they're missing; any kind of

weaponry or tools that they may, for example, be on conditions not to possess.

We would be able to identify that right away and not because we were there looking

for those items. But it's an important part of the public safety picture. It's a huge

component of what people are feeling, especially, you know, when we look at what's

happening in downtown Vancouver with the shoplifting and people having a variety of

weaponry.

One of the things that I can say as well, for myself, back when I was a police officer,

there are many circumstances where it felt like the job of a social worker was being

placed on police. Police are not social workers. They are law enforcement officers.

But if I was on the job today and I was being told to go into places with people who

may be consuming drugs or may have complex mental health and addictions issues, particularly

if they may be encountering someone who is in a drug-induced psychosis or has other

mental health and behavioural health issues, I would not, probably, use this legislation.

I would always use the CDSA because that way I know I'm going to be safe, because

it would allow me to detain that person for investigation under the CDSA with my reasonable

grounds, because either someone's reported drug use or I've seen it, and I would detain

that person for investigation.

I'd identify them so that, in case they make a complaint against me later, I'd know

who I was dealing with. In case they have a warrant, in case when I run their name,

I find out that they have stabbed someone before.

We don't want another Constable Yang from Burnaby. We need to have officers feeling

comfortable and not that they are being told to, I would say…. It feels like to me,

based on this, that even the idea that we wouldn't identify a person police are interacting

with, given the fact that even the presence of police officers can escalate behaviours,

that we're not even identifying these people and the police may not know if they're

dealing with a violent person when they come up to them, a person with serious mental

health issues…. We could be placing police in danger.

What considerations, in terms of the importance and even the importance to public

safety of using those discretionary tools where police identify a person as the right

to do so under the Criminal Code, the right to search people for safety under the

Criminal Code and to find out that information that could be important to both safety

for the officer and the safety of the person...? We're taking it into consideration

in this legislation.

I don't want my words to dissuade officers from trying to use that measured approach,

but there are some serious safety concerns that I have going forward when we're in

a situation dealing with sometimes unpredictable behaviours associated to drug use.

That's not a judgment of the person's character but a reality of use of substances

that have psychoactive properties and then sending in police officers to deal with

those individuals without identifying them and without the immediate means to do a

safety search.

[5:20 p.m.]

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

I'll just make this comment and then a couple of observations. First, this is provincial;

it's not criminal. But if the individual is asked…. Let's say you were a police officer

and you ask me to move and I move, then that's what this legislation is about. That's

what police have asked for. That's the tool that they've asked for.

If I were to tell you…. You asked me to move, and I said, "Pound sand; I'm not going,"

then, all of a sudden, that's different. You could say: "Hey, well, I'd like to see

ID and who you are." You could do a search if there was something that, to you, looked

suspicious or what you thought might be. Police have a wide range of discretion in

that area.

Also, in terms of going to a situation…. Again, police are going to make an assessment

of the approach they're going to take, and if they're seeing somebody in psychotic

behaviour or what-have-you…. You're right. They're not social workers, but there are

now more…. Whether it's the car programs or the peer-assisted care teams coming into

place, police are able to call on to deal with a specific situation.

But just in terms of, like, a regular, ordinary…. If someone complies with the order,

"Okay, you have to leave," and they leave, that's one thing. If they say, "Hey, I

don't care; pound sand," or whatever, then police can use the other tools that they

have available to them.

E. Sturko: Thank you for the response.

It's just, to my mind, a missed opportunity. The legislation's intent is to allow

police a tool to move people on. But by the same token, there's a lot of discussion

that we've had this afternoon that's been very good about the engagement. At what

point, then, does that engagement take place? Because if the person just goes…. If

you're like, "Hey, get out of here…." Okay. I mean, there's plenty of….

[5:25 p.m.]

There's a missed opportunity there. Just as I also feel…. Looking at this legislation

and looking at, of course, the intent not to stigmatize people…. But I think, based

on the street disorder, some of the issues that we're seeing outside of parks….

I know this deals with parks. But we're, to some degree, dealing with some of the

same population who are using in places where families might go — outside of businesses,

outside of different public locations — and then going on, when they need more drugs,

to commit crimes, potentially with weapons, to go into London Drugs in downtown Vancouver

and brandish a knife when they're told not to steal.

To address that problem, as well, we need to allow police also to have those tools

to take those weapons off the street, to engage with people. That is now missing.

We're not even engaging with that person. We're not identifying that person.

If they're calm and we say, "Get lost," and they say, "Yeah, of course," because they

know they have a whole arsenal in their belongings, they're probably more likely to

go.

Whereas if they know that they don't have anything on them or whatever, they're

going to say whatever they're going to say. Maybe that escalates to a new other….

Then they go to the Criminal Code or the CDSA or Offence Act or what have you.

Has there been consideration given to the opportunities that police…? We want to use

their time wisely. We want to be dealing with risk. A lot of the individuals who are

unhoused, living in situations where they might be in encampments, are also at risk

of violence from other people. They're vulnerable themselves. It's a vulnerable population

that's vulnerable also from one another.

We're missing an opportunity to potentially identify people with outstanding warrants,

identify missing people, seize weapons. And then, using this engagement in places

where there have been problems associated with drug use, to also help mitigate some

of the issues with street disorder, shoplifting and other crimes that have taken place

when people seek more illicit drugs and to fuel and fund their addictions. We're missing

that opportunity.

Has there been any consultation, or is there any other mechanism within this legislation

that would help make up for that shortcoming? To me, it's a significant shortcoming

that we're missing this opportunity, because that's the way it goes sometimes.

You find the machete when you just go talk to somebody at the park who looks like

they have a suspicious package with them. Or a person that's not supposed to be lurking

around after dark in a school playground, and when you detain that person for investigation,

you find the Caramilk secret or whatever you find. We're missing that opportunity.

What kind of consultation or engagement has been done with police, in particular,

about the lack of these abilities to identify these people in the first instance?

[5:30 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: There's been considerable consultation with police on the legislation. I understand

what the member is saying. That's not something that has been raised with us. It comes

down to what I talked about before, which is: if there are other things happening,

then please have those tools and powers available to them. This is a specific tool

that they asked for, to be able to move people along.

One of the things that we don't want to do, because there have been changes in terms

of procedures, is to incentivize street checks. I mean, we can't automatically assume

that just because someone is using drugs that they are…. It's that stigma issue that

we have had the conversation about. This is very much dealing with public concern,

raised at the community level, working with police to come up with the appropriate

legislative response, which involved considerable consultation. That's the approach

that has been taken.

E. Sturko: First off, just to address the whole notion of increasing street checks. Street checks

are something that the majority of police have not…. They don't do street checks.

It's against policy to just street-check.

The entire premise of making a detention of someone is because they are already contravening

the law. For example, because the CDSA still stands in those areas where they're no

longer exempt from use, they're already committing the crime of possession, even if

you're just smoking or whatever. I mean, that wouldn't be a street check. It would

be their lawful authority to detain that person for investigation.

I still have some concerns for safety, but also…. Too often, I think, even in public

safety, we're looking at things in such a siloed way and not that every single person….

Actually, the majority of people that use drugs are not involved in crime — living

in suburban homes, using drugs alone.

But we do have a small sort of subsection of people who have fallen on really awful

times. They're resorting to criminal activity to support their addiction and just

to steal things so that they don't suffer, because when they don't use, when they're

not getting high, they're just really suffering. It's the many people from that similar

group who have often been involved some of the other problematic areas, like the theft,

vandalism, defecation — many of the things that I also heard about at UBCM.

One of things that has been, I think, a big source of frustration for police is that

it's not just the small towns that don't have places to send people. Many of the people,

talking from my own personal experience, who are on the street are already banned

from all shelters for violent behaviour or predatory drug dealing, different types

of behaviour-related issues.

Services like…. For example, in my home community, in Peace Arch Hospital, the overdose

prevention site is only open five days a week, and it closes at, like, 5 p.m. They

only have access to the spectrometer one day a week.

So the frustration for police being, honestly…. We're now not detaining people for

investigation to make sure that everything is safe. We're not identifying people so

that we can carry out the administration of justice, to find out if they have warrants.

We're not going to be as easily locating, potentially, a very vulnerable population

of missing people.

[5:35 p.m.]

I guess my question is, in terms of the…. Even with the clause 5, when we're talking

about the procedures for arrests…. Is there any programming that will be built up,

along with this new legislation, so that police, actually, really do have a place

or a program to put people in? You arrest someone, and there actually is a place to

drop them off or a place to go? Even in a big city like Surrey, there are people that

literally have no place to go.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. I appreciate what she's saying.

I'll just keep coming back to it, because it is important. The legislation was not

arbitrarily developed. It was developed in consultation, with police very much involved.

This is what they were asking for. They have all kinds of other tools as well, but

this was specific to deal with the situation that communities are finding themselves

in.

The member is right to raise that issue of services. That's what we have been working

on. That's what the $1 billion…. That's going from two to 46 and, then, what will

be more, which Mental Health and Addictions is working on, in terms of those places

to take people — in particular, those very complex cases. It is generally a small

group of individuals, often known to police in their local communities, even in big

communities.

I mean, that's outside the scope of this legislation. But that's very much…. Maybe

the simplistic — well, not simplistic, but…. The approach, in terms that it’s often

talked about in public, is that four pillars. . The four pillars includes enforcement.

It includes treatment. It includes housing. It includes all of those things that are

required and that people need.

As much as there's this legislation, all that other work is ongoing, and it's going

to continue to be ongoing to get to where, I think, we all recognize we need to be.

E. Sturko: Thank you for the response from the Solicitor General. Actually, it just made me think

of some interesting things here.

Police can arrest without warrant if the person doesn't move on. When we were first

in the second reading of this bill, it got me thinking about decriminalization here

in B.C. The minister just mentioned the four pillars.

One of the issues that I think exists…. It's not just this legislation. This is where

I mean that we're very siloed. We're dealing with things one thing at a time, one

bill, one piece of legislation, one announcement after the other.

[5:40 p.m.]

The reality is that decriminalization in other countries, where it has been successful….

It's still unlawful to do drugs in public. In Portugal, it's not lawful to do drugs

in public. You don't get a criminal charge, though. You get an administrative penalty,

which compels you to go to dissuasion court. And then from dissuasion court, there

are different options. In the dissuasion court…. There are people like addiction specialists

on it, a lawyer — different types of people that can help the person to be directed

to services and also compelled to services.

People in Uruguay and Portugal and some of the other countries that are actually cited

by this province as the examples of where decriminalization was successful also have

involuntary care. They also have penalties for individuals who commit crimes who are

under the influence of drugs. That person can be sentenced to a form of treatment

that's compelled.

When I think about those types of things that have made other countries…. Even Switzerland

has something. I'm really interested in that model, how Switzerland has decriminalized

heroin. They had all those needles in Needle Park, and then they created a situation

where almost like…. Every place where they had individuals who were using heroin,

they created legal consumption rooms where people could get needles and do heroin.

They have a very robust pharmaceutical alternatives program. They prescribe a ton

of methadone there. It's their most prescribed form of medication for people that

use heroin. They also use a nasal heroin program.

One of the things that happened, incidentally, is that cocaine trafficking went way

up. It's still illegal, and they still pursue charges for that. But I guess my point

is that in places where it has worked, they actually still have really strict guidelines.

Even in Switzerland, you can't just go and do heroin wherever you want. The whole

point was that they didn't want people using heroin.

The national embarrassment for them in the '90s was Needle Park. It was a beautiful

park that was completely covered in needles. There was the AIDS epidemic that they

had and all kinds of diseases that were being transmitted through shared needles.

So they created a system where, yes, they decriminalized, and they supported people

to say: "You know what? We understand that we're not going to be able to get rid of

all the heroin. So what we'll do is we'll prescribe pharmaceutical alternatives like

the nasal heroin, give people methadone. We'll create spaces where people can legally

do drugs out of the public view, in safe places." But you still can't do heroin wherever

you want. There are still penalties, but instead of a criminal penalty, it's administrative.

We actually saw a similar thing happen here. You'll probably remember this. We saw

a similar thing happen with impaired driving in British Columbia, where, under certain

circumstances, instead of getting a criminal code charge for impaired driving, what

do you get? IRP. You get dealt with through an administrative process, recognizing

the fact that, first of all, court is clogged up, which is probably the biggest reason

they did that. The courts didn't have enough room to charge all the drunk drivers

here in B.C.

But it also gives people that opportunity. Maybe they made a mistake, and maybe they….

As long as you didn't hurt anyone, as long as you weren't grossly intoxicated — there

are a few other caveats to it — you can receive administrative penalties, which is

precisely what Portugal does and what many of the other….

Actually, I think it was all of them. I got the research team to look at all the ones

that are cited on the government of B.C.'s website. All those other ones that are….

It says: "Decriminalization can be successful. Look at these countries." Well, they

all have administrative penalties, and it's not legal to go there and do drugs wherever

you want.

I was so hopeful, honestly. I was like: "Oh cool, some legislation is coming." Very

hopeful, actually, that our legislation could actually have a form of regulatory process

that could compel someone, for example, to go to a dissuasion centre, where they have

to do a meeting with someone who is trained.

Not a cop. I mean, cops are great. Don't get me wrong. But I mean an actual trained

addictions counsellor — cool person, nice — with services, with food, with things

to actually offer people to go there and to get intake into something really great

where we could have a jumping-off point for someone to get help and get pharmaceutical

alternatives to illicit drugs.

[5:45 p.m.]

Everyone is talking about…. The Leader of the Third Party talked about the Select

Standing Committee on Health. There was an agreement from all parties that medically

supervised pharmaceutical alternatives or safe supply was a way that people wanted

to go. But to be successful, we need a way to convert those who are using absolutely

deadly drugs on the street to getting them to pharmaceutical alternatives that are

legal, medically supervised and safer, and opportunities to then receive one-on-one

counselling with someone who can actually assist them in situations where, as a result

of their addiction and other circumstances, they may need that extra help.

We don't have any way to get people there. I can tell you from experience dealing

with people, even people that I've revived from overdose, the first thing they want

to do is use drugs again. I honestly have given this example where I've revived a

person who…. It was their second time being revived in just a number of hours. I thought

they might die. They woke up from two shots of Narcan and a lot of vigorous sternum

rubbing, and the first thing they said is: "Where are my drugs? Did you take them?"

I said: "No, I don't take them." Their first compulsion was to use again, even though

they just about died right there in my arms, basically.

I think to myself, if I choked on a carrot and then you saved me, my first thought

is probably not like "I would love another carrot." It's probably like, "I'm not going

to eat carrots for a while," because I'm scared for my life. But this is the power

of the addiction that's over the people that we're supposed to help.

I'm not asking questions and being a hard-ass because I want this to fail. I'm asking

questions and bringing up points about safety and about services because I want it

to succeed. I wish that we would be able to compel people to get them into St. Paul's.

You get a ticket, you must go to St. Paul's, and we will get you an appointment with

the new program you guys launched. Awesome. That'd be so great. Get them on a pharmaceutical

alternative, so that they don't have to rob London Drugs in downtown Vancouver and

they don't have to die from a fentanyl overdose.

I know we're going to get back to 3 and 4. We can chat about it more. When I see the

arrests without warrant, it's like: "Ah, dang." I wish we could, instead of getting

to that place where we're arresting people even…. Instead this legislation has an

amendment in it that maybe you can go home and think on it. Maybe we can write something

where…. There's actually an administrative potential here that we can unlock where

we're not giving people fines.

Because if they get arrested under the Offence Act, they can get $2,000 fine, six

months in jail. Nobody's getting six months in jail in B.C. Nobody who lives on the

street and uses drugs in the park has $2,000. They need help, but they don't make

good choices. Not because they're not good people and not because they don't have

some capacity to care for themselves, but because their addiction is stealing, literally

robbing them of that ability. Because the pain they are feeling and the level of suffering

that people who are feeling withdrawal feel is like a monster is constantly behind

them, making the decision for them.

I would love instead of getting to even the arrest without warrant…. Hey, guess what?

Already, in this legislation, we go to people. We meet them in the park where they're

at or are using drugs in the public place. We compel them to go to an intake. They

have to go there within a certain number of days, or they can get taken there or guided

there or compelled to go there in some way or incentivized to go there.

Show up, and also, you get some $25 gift certificate or some food, or there's something

to incentivize you to go. Not always punishment, but the carrot. The carrot to go.

Not just the wellness but something. We could actually use this type of legislation

to really help people. You could. I mean, when I see this arrest part….

[5:50 p.m.]

Of course, I was just a second ago being a hard-ass about arresting people and finding

all their weapons and stuff. But when we're dealing with the crisis that we have and

looking at the examples around the world that this government cites, regulatory penalties,

ways of compelling the individual are what have made those other places successful.

It's in recognizing that it is a medical issue and that we need to move people on

to medical alternatives. It does not help the person when we do not guide them or

compel them towards pharmaceutical alternatives.

I think I had a question in here somewhere. It's been 15 minutes. Has there been any

consideration, I'll just say, or is there potential for consideration to include an

ability for a regulatory process to bring people into the care that they need?

The Chair: Just a reminder to all the hon. members in here to please use parliamentary language.

Thank you.

[5:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the member. We could probably have a very long discussion

on this.

I'll make these points. This legislation really is to deal with a specific situation

that's been raised by local communities and policing. On the issue that the member

talks about, whether mandatory treatment or administrative penalty, administrative

approach, then to get into treatment, I think where we are right now is making sure

that we are able to build the services to….

Everything we hear from the health experts is that if people are ready to get treatment,

that's the best time. That's the most effective way to get treatment — when someone

says, "I need help," or: "I need to get that treatment. I need help." I think the

approach right now is to build out those services so that can happen. Is it where

it needs to be? No, it's not where it needs to be. But we need to get it to that place.

The issue of what's happening…. I know they're cited in…. Portugal and Uruguay — those

are important, and those are relied on in terms of helping to develop some of the

approaches that we've taken. But what's also important is that you can't just take…

You know, this is what Portugal does, so automatically saying that that approach works

here.

There are aspects that work here. There are aspects that won't work here. There are

different demographics. There are different cultural issues. There are different drug

issues. Portugal does not have the level of fentanyl contamination that we have here.

They have a very different cultural demographic than we have here. That being said,

that's not to take away from what they've done but rather to look at what they've

done and can work here.

The same in other jurisdictions. Looking down to our neighbours south of the border,

Oregon has done the administrative penalty approach. They're finding that that's not

effective. Does that mean that we shouldn't look at different and alternative ways

of doing things? Absolutely not. It comes back to the work done in the committee.

It comes back to the combination of policy. It comes back to having the public supporting

what we're doing.

I bring that back to this legislation before us. It was developed in consultation

with police to be able to deal with the challenges that they're facing with local

government.

You're right in terms of…. We want to make sure that we're not operating in silos.

That's part and parcel why my ministry, Health, and Mental Health and Addictions meet

on a biweekly basis. That's why the investments are being made in mental health.

I'm sort of going down my own kind of path here.

An effective treatment option, or centre, is the Red Fish Healing Centre, which is

very close to my constituency office. That's something that I think we would like

to see expanded across to different parts of the province, that is able to deal with

those very complex cases that are often challenging to be able to deal with.

I want to say, recognizing where we are in terms of coming close in terms of time,

that I hear what you're saying. There's a lot of work that's already underway. There's

a lot of work that's got to be done. This legislation is just one part of that.

E. Sturko: Thank you for that response. I just want to clarify….

[6:00 p.m.]

Not every administrative penalty has to lead to, for example, involuntary care. It

doesn't have to. I would say, too, that in Oregon, the administrative penalty that

led to…. People would have to phone a phone number. Difficult to comply with if you

don't have a phone, potentially, or minutes or a phone card or access to do that.

I hope that in the deliberations and consideration about ongoing, different types

of procedures or, perhaps, administrative processes that we can use to help people….

For example, just get them in the door of some place where then they could be offered

a prescribed alternative.

The Solicitor General is correct that not Switzerland, not Portugal, nowhere in Europe

has a fentanyl problem like we have. It's difficult because you can't really.... It's

difficult to compare. We do need to make some changes that make programming unique.

Then by the same token, the government should not cite the success of other decriminalization

programs in other jurisdictions around the world that don't have the same problem

that we have and are doing…. A lot of things here that just…. I think people, depending

on what your belief system is.... Some people do believe in involuntary care. Some

people are absolutely against involuntary care. Some people are all for compelled

services. Others are against compelled services.

We cannot, as a province, tell people that decriminalization is going to work and

solve our problem, telling them that we're going to achieve the same pie when we're

not using the same recipe. These other jurisdictions have.... They're willing to do

things that it does not seem we're willing to do.

I would think that in terms of the need and the deadliness of illicit drugs on the

street…. The presence of benzodiazepines and the xylazine that's chewing through people's

flesh is, I think, really what makes it even more important to have some type of ability

to at least compel people to a meeting. They're free to leave after the meeting, but

get them in the door where they could be offered a prescribed alternative.

There's an issue with rolling out safe supply in the province or prescribed alternatives

under medical supervision. We need to get more people off fentanyl, street drugs and

get them onto prescribed alternatives.

Is there a possibility that this type of administrative process could be added to?

Is this something that could be into consideration going forward, depending on, I

guess, the outcomes?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the comments from the member. I'd say, look, nothing is ever static.

We want to pass the legislation, see how it rolls out and how it works. The approach

in terms of treatment, I would say, is constantly evolving as we learn new things

and get new information. But this right now is dealing with specific concerns raised

at the local level.

S. Furstenau: Lots of conversation going on. I think, from my point of view, it's social determinants

of health. We've seen data-backed evidence around communities that have adopted a

housing-first model. The costs are actually lower for those communities than the cost

of people being homeless.

[6:05 p.m.]

Since this legislation is going to largely impact people who are homeless, people

who, as the member for Surrey South pointed out, are not using their drugs in their

own homes, I think it's really important for us to take into consideration the cost

of not adopting a housing-first model.

My question for the Solicitor General is: has a cost analysis been conducted to compare

the cost on the justice system, law enforcement, detention, courts…? I'd add to that

the health care system. Even just a cost analysis to compare the costs on the justice

system for this new legislation versus the cost of housing people who are homeless?

Which would be less expensive to B.C. taxpayers?

If this information isn't available, how was this decision made without it?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member's question. Obviously, social determinants of health are crucial

in a whole range of issues and in particular in this issue. What I can tell the member

is that there's not any sort of anticipated increase in costs because of this legislation.

It's very much about a conversation. It's not about filling the justice system with

individuals.

The Chair: We're going to just do this as the last question for today before we adjourn.

S. Furstenau: Specific to this clause: "A police officer may arrest, without a warrant, a person

who the police officer believes on reasonable grounds is committing an offence under

section 8." To suggest that this wouldn't have any additional cost of policing seems

a little problematic.

Again, the concern that the minister has identified throughout the discussion today

has been the concern with visible drug use in public places and the connection of

that to the unhoused population in our communities. It's hard to get a figure for

all of B.C. It seems to be between 10,000 and 20,000 people. If by chance the minister

could have that figure, that would be really helpful.

This legislation appears to me to be legislation that is dealing with a symptom of

a much deeper problem, and that's that we are not meeting those social determinants

of health for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of people. Now we are turning

to an enforcement mechanism, as opposed to solving a fundamental, basic need and right

for people to have a place to live — ideally even starting with a secure place to

sleep.

It's concerning that there isn't any kind of consideration of that cost analysis that's

gone into this legislation when it is very much legislation that is focused on the

unhoused population.

I guess my follow-up question to the minister would be: how would it be that there

would be no anticipated increase to costs with this legislation and, specifically,

this clause?

[6:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question from the member, and I'll just make this comment. Public

drug use has been with us for a very long time. It's not an either-or proposition

in terms of is this going to result in increased costs. It's not going to result….

This isn't about arresting people and clogging up the justice system. It is a provincial

offence provision. That's all. The investments in terms of housing are going to continue.

The investments in terms of services are going to continue.

With that, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 6:11 p.m.

Top

NOTICE: This is a DRAFT transcript of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of

British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections and will be replaced by

the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative

precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any

of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.

Copyright © 2023: British Columbia

Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada