Orders of the Day

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Motion 21 on the order paper in my name.

Government Motions on Notice

MOTION 21 — COMMITTEE OF SUPPLY
TO SIT IN THREE SECTIONS

Hon. M. Farnworth: Motion 21 reads:

[Further to the motion adopted on March 1, 2018, that this House hereby authorizes the Committee of Supply for this session to sit in an additional third section designated Section C which will sit in the Birch Committee Room as may be appointed from time to time. All rules and provisions of the motion related to Committee of Supply, Section A shall apply to Section C. The Members of Committee of Supply, Section C shall be identical to the composition of Committee of Supply, Section A.]

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading on Bill 26, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Health. In Section C, the Birch Room, I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 25, Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018.

M. Polak: Just as a point of clarification, I note that my opposite member referred to Committee C as Committee of Supply. I seek to understand if that’s the correct wording.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Section C is to do the Committee of the Whole.

[2:40 p.m.]

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 26 — CHILD, FAMILY AND
COMMUNITY SERVICE
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that Bill 26 be now read a second time.

For too long, Indigenous children and youth have been overrepresented in our child welfare system. Indigenous children, like all children, deserve to grow up in safe, loving homes, connected to their community and culture. One of the sad realities of our colonial history is that more than half of the children in government care are Indigenous. It’s a legacy of colonialism that continues today, and we are committed to changing that.

Reducing the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the child welfare system by working with Indigenous communities is a priority for this government as we move towards meaningful and lasting reconciliation. My mandate letter from the Premier made it very clear that this is a top priority for me as a minister. Bill 26 gives us a practical, meaningful way to do just that.

This government believes that Indigenous children connected to their community and culture are Indigenous children growing up in a safe, healthy and loving environment. The proposed changes to the Child, Family and Community Service Act will give Indigenous communities greater involvement in child welfare decisions to help keep their children out of care, safe in their home communities and connected to their cultures.

For years now, Indigenous communities and leaders have demanded urgent changes to keep Indigenous children out of care. Shortly after my taking on the role as the Minister of Children and Family Development, the leaders of the September 2017 First Nations Leadership gathering told me I needed to make changes now in how our social workers do their work. This message was driven home to me at the emergency meeting of Indigenous child welfare, called by the federal government in January.

The message was further strengthened in specific recommendations in Grand Chief Ed John’s report. Grand Chief Ed John’s report was developed after extensive consultation with First Nations and Indigenous peoples and called for changes to the legislation that commits government to work more collaboratively with Indigenous communities right at the beginning of a child protection concern. While we have been able to reduce the number of Indigenous children in care by almost 100 over the past year, by focusing on prevention and supporting families in communities, we need to do more.

For that, we need to change the legislation. We listened to what communities have been telling us, and we reviewed Grand Chief Ed John’s report to inform us of what aspects of the legislation we needed to change, urgently, in order to reduce the number of Indigenous children coming into care. We also looked to what the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth And Reconciliation calls to action tell us about the best interests of Indigenous children and their entitlement to connection with family and community.

Let me quote from the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples: “Recognizing in particular the right of Indigenous families and communities to retain shared responsibility for the upbringing, training, education and well-being of their children, consistent with the rights of the child.”

Through this bill and these amendments to our act, government is responding to the immediate need to share information, engage Indigenous communities early when a family and child are vulnerable and seek solutions outside of child protection. These amendments include the means for ministry social workers to make agreements with the Indigenous child’s parents and community to allow for greater involvement in planning for the child; additional ways that social workers, parents and the Indigenous communities can collaborate proactively to keep a child safe and prevent them from coming into care.

[2:45 p.m.]

There’s the requirement that social workers give continued notice of Child, Family and Community Service Act proceedings to an Indigenous community when it concerns custody of an Indigenous child; the added right of an Indigenous child in care to learn about the practice of the child’s Indigenous traditions, customs and language and the importance of the child belonging to their Indigenous community; the strengthening of the “best interests of the child” test.

When the courts and social workers are determining the best interests of an Indigenous child, they will be required to consider the importance of the child being able to learn about and practise their traditions, customs and language and to belong to their Indigenous community.

Finally, the amendments strengthen the guiding principles and service delivery principles by stating that Indigenous families and communities share responsibility for the upbringing and well-being of Indigenous children. Indigenous children are entitled to learn about and practise their Indigenous traditions, customs and languages and to belong to their Indigenous community.

The impact of residential schools on Indigenous children, families and communities should be considered in the planning and delivery of services to Indigenous children and families. This change to the act’s service delivery principles is inspired by the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission.

This government has adopted the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the calls to action of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission. There is much more work to be done, in collaboration with Indigenous communities, to fulfil this commitment. That process is led by my colleague the Minister of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation.

The changes to the act are a significant step forward for children and families in the province, but we recognize that these are just first steps. We need to work with our partners — delegated Aboriginal agencies, the First Nations Leadership Council and individual First Nations — to bring these amendments to life. That work will include policy development and practice changes, and we look forward to hearing from the experience and expertise of First Nations and delegated Aboriginal agencies to learn from them on how to make these changes work for First Nations families. It is just one of the many ways we are listening to and working with Indigenous communities to reform the child welfare system.

As I have said, it is just a beginning, not an end. I know — we all know — that the approaches that have been taken up to now have utterly failed Indigenous children and their families. I’ve demonstrated my commitment to the transfer of jurisdiction. We are continuing that work with individual First Nations in discussion to expand this work to other Indigenous communities, and we have committed to that transformational change with the First Nations Leadership Council.

We know that delegated Aboriginal agencies also have decades of experience to offer as we move towards Indigenous communities exercising authority and jurisdiction over their children and families. This work will take time, but my job right now is to reduce the number of Indigenous children and youth in care. This bill is intended to do just that.

The ministry has listened to years of concerns and demands by Indigenous communities for change, and this government is acting on those concerns. We have listened to the federal cry about an urgent crisis in Indigenous child welfare across the country. It’s time to start this change in British Columbia for those children now in care and those whose families are in crisis. In communities across this province right now, there are children and families who will benefit from the changes in this bill. We know this because Indigenous communities have told us so.

We agree that there is a crisis in Indigenous child welfare. It is our responsibility to step up and hear what Indigenous communities are telling us, what Grand Chief Ed John’s report says and what children and families need and to make those changes now, while we work on the systemic changes required to fully transform the system that has failed Indigenous children and families.

I’m looking forward to further discussion on this bill at committee stage.

L. Throness: Well, it’s a pleasure to also rise to speak to Bill 26, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act. Before I get into the substance of the bill and consider some certain particulars of it, I want to talk about the very big picture. The broader purpose of the bill is very simple: everybody needs family. Every child, Indigenous or otherwise, needs and deserves love, belonging and permanency, whether in their birth family or in another kind of permanent family situation.

[2:50 p.m.]

This was impressed upon me last week while sitting in the Standing Committee on Children and Youth as we considered the report, Broken Promises, which was written a year ago, by the Representative for Children and Youth, about the tragic case of Alex Gervais, who committed suicide in 2015 while in government care.

Central to that boy’s life was the absence of family. There were opportunities for connecting him with his extended family that the system neglected to follow up on, which would probably have made the difference in his life. For a while, he was staying with his stepmother. The police had to literally drag him away from his stepmom, but he wasn’t allowed to stay.

Every child, including all 7,000 children in government care, needs what Alex Gervais didn’t get. That’s love and belonging in a permanent family of their own. Unfortunately, bureaucracies are ill equipped to provide that.

Governments are a physical mechanism designed to achieve a spiritual purpose. So there’s something of a mismatch, a disconnect there. Governments deal with institutions. They’re paper mechanisms. They have contracts and highly educated people with good salaries and good intentions who work within guidelines and policies and professional relationships and reporting hierarchies and caseloads. They have tightly defined spheres within which they are able to work. They must make judgment calls. There are limits to their authority before they need permission from up the ladder, and those permissions take time. There are different branches of government that abide by different laws and regulations and policies.

Now, if you don’t have all these things, you can’t run a government. Don’t get me wrong, but they can’t supply the intimate, personal, permanent associations that a child really needs to be healthy in life.

That brings me to this bill which expands the scope of officials of the Ministry of Children and Family Development to make agreements with all sorts of agencies, not only parents and relatives but delegated Aboriginal agencies, First Nations, treaty nations and other yet-to-be named groups or agencies. To the degree that they are institutions — and I think that most of them will be institutions — they share that same difficulty. Whether Indigenous or not, they are government bodies rather than families.

What really disturbed me about Alex Gervais’s story was that one of the institutions that failed him was a delegated Aboriginal agency. In fact, MCFD made an agreement in Alex’s case with a delegated Aboriginal agency, which, in turn, made a further agreement with a private care provider to care for Alex. All three levels of oversight failed him equally in ways that are described in great and sad detail by the representative’s report.

What I’m saying is this. This bill is not a panacea. Just the fact that the bill empowers a broadened scope of agreements will not, in itself, make everything all right. I’m not expecting that handing things over to Indigenous agencies, rather than MCFD, will suddenly fix all the problems for the 63 percent of children in government care who are Indigenous.

To give an analogy, the bill describes a new and broader path to the goal of love and belonging and permanency, but it doesn’t necessarily carry that child along that path. Whether that child arrives at the goal of family or not depends on the quality and capacity and character and passion and focus of ministry staff and those with whom they make agreements. God knows there have been enough failures in the past. There is no guarantee of success in the future. However, we do think that this bill opens up new possibilities. It is a step in the right direction, and for that reason, we will support the bill.

Now, the minister corrected me the other day in estimates, and rightly so, when I said that adoption and foster care lie at the heart of what she does. She disagreed with me. She said that building and strengthening families so that children can stay in the family home is her most important job, and I have to agree with that.

Our guiding light has to be that goal — the goal of a permanent family home for every child, a family that will provide the love and belonging that they need to survive and thrive. On this point, I want to quote from the Representative for Children and Youth, who appeared before the standing committee on April 11. Here’s what he said:

“One institution that we haven’t done a good job of supporting and building is the family. Families struggle, for all kinds of historic reasons. We’ve tried to find institutional solutions to that by building and contracting with churches and building hospitals and hospital wings and taking children from their families. That hasn’t worked. I think we can all agree on that. We haven’t succeeded. Building the institution of the family and supporting the family as an institution — I’m all for that.”

I’m all for that too. I am all for that.

[2:55 p.m.]

While I think it’s a good thing that we’re expanding the scope of agreements with different nations and agencies and entities and parties named in the bill, all of our efforts will be wasted — they will fail — if we don’t, in the end, strengthen families and provide children with permanent families where they are loved and where they belong. It’s as simple as that. That, I think, is the government’s spiritual mandate, and I think it’s a very difficult one.

That being said, let’s move on to consider the context of the bill before us. In the wake of some stories like Alex’s story, Grand Chief Ed John was given six months in 2015 by the former government to come up with solutions to the vast overrepresentation of Indigenous children in the care of government. Grand Chief John delivered his report in November 2016, and it was greeted positively by the B.C. Liberal government.

In fact, a year ago, here’s what the 2017 B.C. Liberal platform said about improvements for Indigenous peoples: “Recognized as a key priority, the government asked Grand Chief Ed John to do a comprehensive review of this area, and his report has provided guidance on the path forward. The government has already started implementing 40 of his 85 recommendations.”

The bill before us today, Bill 26, builds on the strong foundation laid by our own government in fulfilment of Chief Ed John’s recommendations — most noticeably, recommendation 41, which says this:

“The province consider the following amendments to the CFCSA in order to provide improved permanency plan­ning for Indigenous children and youth — strengthening of section 7 of the CFCSA to include mandatory permanency planning for all children in care, including provisions to ensure that for Indigenous children, permanency plans are jointly developed by each child’s family and community, including elders, cultural leaders, elected leaders and matriarchs, and including a provision requiring independent review of permanency plans on an annual basis.”

This is the context of the bill. It’s a response to the Ed John report. I would point out that the bill attempts to provide a response to about nine of the recommendations in Chief John’s report.

The bill provides broad authority for the director to make agreements with a wide spectrum of interested parties in support of a child in care: parents, relatives, delegated Aboriginal agencies, prescribed First Nations and treaty First Nations. This is a change in mindset by the government. The government is reaching out to other partners in an attempt to stem the tide of Indigenous children in care.

Here I have to pause to comment on what the Representative for Children and Youth said in committee a couple of weeks ago when he appeared there. He said that he was not in any way consulted by the government about this legislation. I’m astonished by that. He literally wrote the book on Alex Gervais. The former representative wrote many other reports like them. The NDP, at that time, used those reports to rail against the government. I find it unimaginable that the NDP would now keep the representative completely in the dark about the legislation.

I’m not talking about revealing any legislative secrets. I’m just saying that they should have at least asked him what he would like to see. But that was not done. It speaks to the arrogance of this young government, as if they have all the answers. They don’t need advice from anyone. Well, I think they’ll find out, over time, that they’re wrong.

Allow me to continue. Indigenous children are 17 times more likely to be taken into care than a non-Indigenous child. The government is going to extraordinary lengths in this legislation to reach out to the Aboriginal community because special measures need to be taken where there are special needs. This special situation of need warrants a change in the government’s mindset.

Let me give you a few more statistics. Children are taken into government care when they’re unsafe in the family home. Aboriginal children are heavily overrepresented in government care. As of March 31, 2017, where we find the latest statistics, there were 6,950 children in government care, and 63 percent of them are Indigenous children, even though just 5 percent of B.C. residents are Indigenous.

To narrow this down even further, there are 79,000 Indigenous children under 18 in B.C. Six percent of all Indigenous children in B.C. are, therefore, in the care of government. It was because of this situation that we, when we were in government, mandated, funded and supported the Ed John report. This bill, as I said, responds to nine more recommendations of his report.

Of the Aboriginal children in care, 75 percent of them are in foster homes, and 25 percent are in contracted care. I would remind the House that contracted care is five times more expensive than foster care, and it does not provide the love and warmth of a family home. The report on Alex Gervais tells us that contracted care can, at times, even harm a child. That’s why finding safe and loving care for Indigenous children in their own communities will be better for them, as well as saving the taxpayer money.

I will also point out that this bill will be less useful without strong delegated Aboriginal agencies around the province.

[3:00 p.m.]

The Representative for Children and Youth has stated that a lack of assistance to delegated Aboriginal agencies actually contributes to the overrepresentation of Indigenous children in care, because of several reasons that he pointed out, among them high caseloads, short-term contracts, not accounting for the unique needs of rural and remote communities, long investigation times and a paternalistic attitude on the part of MCFD staff. The government needs to resolve these issues in order to make Bill 26 effective.

While this bill focuses on children and their plans for care, we have to remember that it comes about because of problems with parents. The children are not the problems; they’re the victims. They are unsafe in Indigenous homes at a higher rate than non-Indigenous homes. Those children really do need protection.

While we, the B.C. Liberals, were in government, we established the overall direction of strengthening families so that every child can be safe in the family home. The minister has to work hard to strengthen Indigenous families in their communities. The representative has indicated that if the communities were better resourced, they might be able to make a difference in this overrepresentation simply by strengthening families.

The other thing the representative said that was of interest to me is that the bill provides that the director — and by that we mean a responsible official in the MCFD — may make agreements rather than shall make agreements. He felt that the bill does not go far enough.

I might question that idea and point out that while, in most cases, agreements will obviously be made, which is why we’re passing this legislation, an agreement with another party should not yet be required. This is because the government is responsible for those children. The government is the guardian while they are in care. If there is no entity that the government feels quite satisfied has the capacity and ability and energy to carry out the terms of the agreement, no agreement should be made.

This is an abundance of caution on the part of government, and given what has happened in the past, this caution is justified. Now, at some point in the future, as capacities develop, this may change. This bill takes a step toward that, and it acknowledges that capacity is developing, but it may take more time.

As I have already pointed out, the Representative for Children and Youth has acknowledged that designated Aboriginal agencies lack capacity, and they are among the best prepared. So the government has work to do to strengthen agencies before it can give more care away.

Another issue addressed in the bill is that of sharing private information. For the purposes of community involvement in Indigenous care, the bill provides for the sharing of personal information with parties, such as Indigenous groups. We support this, as an aspect of the best interest of the child, as long as the conditions of the information agreements are robust.

Now I want to move on to talk about new guiding principles in the bill, of which there are three. The first is this: that Indigenous families and Indigenous communities share responsibility for the upbringing and the well-being of Indigenous children. Now, that’s fine with me. I think we can support that. But we have to remember that we are amending an act that applies to all British Columbians, not just First Nations.

I wonder if there are any other ethnic communities that have a tradition of collective responsibility for the well-being of their children that might also be overrepresented among children in government care. For example, I’ve heard that there are ethnic daycares in B.C., and that seems to me to be the kind of community care concept. It seems only fair to me that every ethnicity that would want to be treated in this way should have that privilege. So I’ll be asking in committee whether any other ethnicity with a tradition of community care is overrepresented and perhaps should be named in the bill as well.

The second guiding principle is as follows: the director will have to consider the impact of residential schools as they plan and deliver services to Indigenous children and families. Now, I have no problem with this one either, but I would like to know more specifics from the government. How might that consideration impact a child welfare case in concrete terms?

I would point out that this principle doesn’t impact any children directly, because the last residential school was closed, in Saskatchewan, in 1996, and in B.C., in 1984, in Mission. So no child under 18 today has ever attended a residential school. This guiding principle will apply only to parents and grandparents and indirectly to children and grandkids.

I’m wondering what kind of consideration would be given to parents. What kind of different allowance or decisions would be made that would take residential schools into account? I’ll be seeking more information at committee stage about this.

The third principle is this: the director must now consider the importance of the child being able to learn about and practise the child’s Indigenous traditions, customs and language and the importance of the child belonging to the child’s Indigenous community.

[3:05 p.m.]

I won’t have any questions about this one, nor the related right contained in the bill. That is the right to receive guidance, encouragement and support to learn about and practise their Indigenous traditions, customs and languages and belong to their Indigenous communities.

In a broad sense, these principles and rights are all about connecting Indigenous children to their culture and heritage, to kinship and wider social circles within their communities as a protective measure. So we think this is a healthy development, as long as it works, and we’ll be watching closely to see that it does.

On a lesser point, the bill makes a number of changes with respect to nomenclature of First Nations people. Specifically, the bill seems to me to remove the word “Aboriginal” throughout, even though the word is replete through other B.C. laws as well as federal laws and even in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. So I’ll want to ask in committee why we’re removing the word “Aboriginal” from the act altogether, as if it’s an incorrect term, although it is used even in our constitution. I’ll want to ask about the legal ramifications of changing that word.

Now I want to move on to five main things in the other content of the bill. The existing act allows for voluntary agreements with the director, Ministry of Children and Family Development. This bill provides for a broader span of voluntary agreements so that others can participate in planning for children — a parent, a child’s kin and others — and youth agreements, with the appropriate legal entities representing Indigenous communities.

Agreements will have to describe the party’s role. They can withdraw from it without termination of the agreement. My comment to that would be that the bill anticipates that some parties may withdraw from the agreement. It suggests that the government anticipates that not all parties to a voluntary agreement will be reliable. This means that if a party withdraws, the government will need to remain the constant responsible party in the care of the child. The government must not wash its hands of Indigenous children just because it has an agreement. It needs to remain there in support of the child.

The second thing is that directors must — and I would point out that they must; this is not an option — complete a child protection report upon taking a child into care. By this bill, if the report concerns an Indigenous child, the director will be required to determine whether to refer the report to a First Nation, the Nisg̱a’a Nation or a treaty First Nation in situations where the child resides on the nation’s land. It will only be sent if the nation has entered into an agreement to take on this responsibility and has been prescribed in a regulation approved by cabinet.

I would point out here that such a referral will absolve the director of further action, which I think means that the child will no longer be in government care, and I’ll want to clarify that in committee. If that is the case, then the order-in-council designation process and the agreement itself and the party with whom we will make agreements will have to be as robust as the government.

I want to emphasize this point. Unless the government is convinced that a party to an agreement is as responsible as the government and can do at least as good a job as MCFD, then it shouldn’t be designated by cabinet as an alternate to government care. I will be asking what steps, in terms of an accreditation process, the government will be taking to assure this as it makes regulations attached to the act.

The fourth thing. Under this bill, the director will be able to withdraw from a hearing related to the removal of a child if a parent makes an agreement with the Indigenous legal entity representing the child that the director considers is adequate to protect the child. This will be true even if the agreement is with a government agency outside B.C.

This power to withdraw is important. It will provide an incentive to make agreements, and that’s a good thing. But it will also require that both the entity and the agreement are strong. The government needs to establish criteria in regulations ahead of time for such entities and agreements.

Next, parents and Indigenous communities are being added to receive notice concerning the hearing of all extensions of temporary custody orders. When notice of the hearing is received, the person served will be entitled to be a party at the hearing and to notice of a hearing if they appear at the commencement of a hearing. I think this is an important legal right for parents in Indigenous communities. Parents and other interested parties need to be heard when the government wants to continue to keep a child out of the family home. This is a big deal.

I want to say that, quite often, I, as a critic, receive letters from around B.C. They are long letters, and they are anguished. Parents may be temporarily unfit, for whatever reason, to take care of their kids, and their children do need protection, but that doesn’t mean that the parent doesn’t love their children and that their children don’t still love their parents. They need to be included in the process.

[3:10 p.m.]

Finally, the director will be able to make agreements for planning for children and service agreements with First Nations or a legal entity representing another Indigenous community. It could include assessments and investigations of children and families, making plans of care, independence and placement decisions.

This bill also empowers the director to enter into agreements with delegated Aboriginal agencies concerning the care of children. This really is a broad power, really replacing the functions of government with functions of First Nations or legal entities. I want to underscore that the process of accreditation and oversight must be strong, and, as before, while capacities in First Nations communities grow, this should remain an option, with the understanding that it will be the normal role of practice anyway.

To sum up, I have two main concerns about the bill, and I want to repeat them. The first is about government responsibility. We want to be assured that the government is not surrendering its responsibility for a child to another party, particularly in a voluntary agreement, while the child is in the government’s care. We say this because the bill anticipates allowing a party to withdraw from an agreement without the agreement itself being affected. Not all parties may be equally reliable. It is the government’s responsibility to be the constant party in the agreement to ensure the child’s continued safety and well-being.

The case of Alex Gervais, a Métis youth who committed suicide in 2015 while in the care of MCFD, which delegated responsibility to a delegated Aboriginal agency, which in turn hired a private care provider, proves that this bill is not a panacea. It is possible for all three levels of care to fail.

The quality of provider, whether Indigenous or non-Indigenous, is of first importance. But insofar as this bill empowers government officials to find permanent placements for children where they can experience love and belonging within their Indigenous context, that is a good thing. We think that the measures here offer a better path toward that goal for Indigenous children, although there is much work to be done.

My final concern is very broad. This bill focuses on plans and supports for children in care, but the real problem lies in the family home, which is why the ministry has been attempting, for good reason, to strengthen families.

The principle of strengthening families as a preventative measure was established by the B.C. Liberal government as the result of skyrocketing numbers of children in care during the 1990s. The removal of a child from a home is not the fault of a child. The child is the victim of an unsafe family situation. While the legislation before us understandably focuses on the custody of the child because the government becomes the child’s guardian while the child is in care, the need for change lies in the parents.

The bill does offer an incentive of assistance and support to a parent who signs an agreement with a director, but the clause could perhaps be stronger. Perhaps give the director and parties that he or she engages to place conditions upon the parents that would have to be met in order to regain custody…. I’ll be asking about this in committee, but I understand that because of situations that are experienced in immediate families, the bill empowers ministry staff to entrust children to a wider circle of Indigenous agencies and family connections, not just in a child’s birth family. We all sincerely hope that this will reduce their overrepresentation of children in care. On that we can all agree.

With that, I will look forward to committee stage, where we will be able to examine each section of the bill in greater detail.

S. Furstenau: Yesterday we celebrated Mother’s Day. It’s one of my favourite days of the year. There’s always breakfast. There are cards and homemade gifts. There are hugs and kisses. I always feel the deep happiness and sense of all being right with the world, the slowing down of time as I savour the moments of warmth and connection with my family.

Mother’s Day isn’t just all about mothers. It’s about the bond, the love that connects us as mothers to our children, who are for us precious and valuable beyond measure. It’s a day for society to recognize the intrinsic and valuable role that mothers play in raising future generations. There’s no love like the love I have for my children. It is boundless. It is ferocious. It is unrelenting. I can imagine nothing worse than being separated from them.

Over the course of this last year since the election, since opening our constituency office, I have become increasingly aware that we are failing, in this province and in this country, to honour mothers, to honour the elemental relationship between mothers and their children.

[3:15 p.m.]

Let us begin in the hospitals. Imagine, within hours of giving birth, one of the most transformative experiences a woman can go through…. Imagine, within hours of holding your infant son or daughter for the first time, having a social worker come into your hospital room to inform you that your infant is going to be removed from you. It’s 2018 in Canada, and government employees are removing infants from their mothers in hospitals.

Often these are first-time mothers who have yet to reveal to society and to themselves how capable they are at being a mother of a child. A Huu-ay-aht mother whose infant was removed from her with no clear, specific cause fought back in the B.C. Supreme Court and, with the help of her lawyer and her community, was reunited with her infant.

In Cowichan, a group of women, including a midwife and a parent advocate, rallied around and supported a mom who had been informed that her infant was to be removed at the hospital. These moms were with their infants this Mother’s Day, but they will also have something that no mother should have to live with — the fear of losing their children to a government agency.

As one mother whose children have never been apprehended explained: “I have raised my children in fear — fear that I will be judged for what they are wearing, what’s in their lunch, how I speak to them in public. That fear is in my cells. It has affected who I am as a mother, and it has affected my children.”

Why does this mother feel this fear? Because she’s Indigenous. As an Indigenous mother, she has every reason to be fearful. Fewer than 10 percent of children in B.C. are Indigenous, but they make up nearly 65 percent of children in government care, which means, statistically, that this mother is right to be afraid.

I can’t imagine. I can’t begin to fathom how this would affect my day-to-day experience — to be so deeply afraid of losing my children to a government agency. As mothers, we are subject to other people’s judgments all the time. But for most of us, these judgments do not translate into the very real possibility that our children could be taken from us.

What are the outcomes for the children in care? These outcomes, sadly, reinforce our fears and worries. An article by Katie Hyslop in the Tyee last week reinforces exactly why federal Indigenous Services Minister Jane Philpott has said that we have a humanitarian crisis in Canada.

In B.C., children in care are more likely to spend time in jail in their lives than they are to graduate from high school. Across Canada, 60 percent of homeless youth have been in the foster care system.

Continuing from Hyslop’s article, according to Shelly Johnson, assistant professor of education at Thompson Rivers University and a former child welfare social worker: “Governments haven’t just known about this crisis for four decades. They created and perpetuated a system that keeps Indigenous kids in government care.”

Johnson continues: “The whole system was established to maintain control over Indigenous people. When you have Indigenous children in your care and custody, you have all the power over that family.” All the power.

As Hyslop points out in her article, in his 1982 report on the adoption of First Nations and Métis children outside the country, Assistant Chief Justice Kimelman said that the child welfare system was an act of cultural genocide. He explained that from inside the system, it’s difficult to see the macro-level impacts, but the cumulative effects of each decision resulted in catastrophe.

Kimelman wrote: “Every social worker, every administrator and every agency or region viewed the situation from a narrow perspective and saw each individual case as an exception, as a case involving extenuating circumstances.”

I see that in my riding. I raise issues, heartbreaking examples, of how the application of this act is failing families. I am met with justifications and excuses. I hear from parents over and over that they have been told: “You will never see your children again.” Or: “If you don’t comply, your children will be taken.” I see it when MCFD staff, from front-line social workers to ministry staff, justify each action, each apprehension, each time that the systemic issues play out over and over again.

[3:20 p.m.]

Each case, they think, is justified. Yet there is, at the same time, the acknowledgement that there are systemic issues. MCFD needs to work very hard and very diligently to reconcile this conflict, this contradiction. If, indeed, there is systemic paternalism and systemic discrimination, and the minister acknowledges this in her comments, then each and every action needs to be assessed.

This is one of the truth and reconciliation calls to action — that the federal, provincial, territorial and Aboriginal governments monitor and assess neglect investigations. I urge the minister to take this call seriously. Without accountability becoming embedded in the practice, the systemic issues will continue, and parents and families will continue to be traumatized, terrified and desperate for help and support.

One of the most heart-wrenching stories I heard was from a victim support person with the RCMP. She worked with a mom whose infant had been apprehended. She helped the mom get through the entire list of requirements that MCFD had given her. The mom and the victim support worker both thought that if these requirements were fulfilled, the child would be returned. But after the significant effort on the part of the mom, she was told that there would now be new requirements. It broke that mother. She had worked hard in good faith to do what she had been told would be necessary to be reunited with her child, and then she was denied that fundamental right to be the mother to her own infant.

Are children actually safer or better off in care? A few, certainly, but the statistics and reports tell a chilling tale. There is no lack of researching and reporting on the many issues, challenges and failures of B.C.’s child welfare system.

Since the release of the Ted Hughes report in 2006, the Representative for Children and Youth has released dozens and dozens of reports, reviews and statements with recommendations to address the ongoing failures within the child welfare system, and what is the current reality? Still today, each month the representative’s office receives 200 reports on critical injuries and deaths. Of these 200, 85 per month are related to child welfare services. That’s 1,000 service-related reports of critical injury or death reviewed by the representative’s office each year that are specifically related to service delivery.

What are the top three reported issues? Sexual abuse, drug overdose and suicide attempts. In the last three months, according to the Representative for Children and Youth, there have been roughly 80 reports of suicide attempts. This is a catastrophe.

It’s been ten months since the new government was sworn in, and what has changed? In my constituency office, we hear from parents in despair whose children were removed not because of their inability to parent but because of the lack of support, usually related to poverty. For example, a woman is abused by her partner. The police and social workers are called to an incident at the home. The abuser is removed from the home as a precaution. The children are also removed and separated from their mother. The children’s first trauma is the act of violence to the mother. The second trauma is being separated from the mother, the person whose comfort they need and for whom they can also be comforting.

We underestimate the value of this connection and that the comfort is not from parent to child only; that shared comfort is necessary for the family to feel grounded in love, which helps them overcome trauma.

What we have witnessed in our work with local families is a discrepancy between what the legislation says and what actions are taken. More worrying still is that we hear ministry management saying that their message to ministry staff is to be creative in finding solutions that will keep Indigenous children out of care. That message is taking a long time to reach staff on the ground because it’s still, ten months into this new government’s term, a daily fight for each of these families to receive the support they need to keep their children at home.

[3:25 p.m.]

The question I ask myself is this. If the directive from the top of the ministry is to do everything possible to keep Indigenous families together and in their communities, why can’t we see the evidence of this at our constituency level? What are the consequences for staff members who are not following management direction?

I’m not the only one asking this question. In his comments to the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth, the Representative for Children and Youth said that there is recognition within the ministry that the priority should be to support families, but that he just doesn’t see “the implementation of this in practice.”

Indeed, section 2 of the Child, Family and Community Services Act, as it stands right now, which outlines the guiding principles of the legislation that currently governs the Ministry of Children and Families, states that “a family is the preferred environment for the care and upbringing of children and the responsibility for the protection of children rests primarily with the parents” and “if, with available support services, a family can provide a safe and nurturing environment for a child, support services should be provided.”

But what do we see in our constituency office week after week? Parents desperate for help and support from us as they try to navigate a system that is not living up to these guiding principles.

Every one of these parents wants to parent their children. Every one of them wants to know what it will take to get their children back. Every one of them is asking for more access to their children, which is sometimes as little as one hour per week. Every one of them has had a stack of paperwork with evidence of a process that many of us in this chamber would find impossible to navigate. Every one of them has had detailed knowledge of the Provincial Court and MCFD systems. Every one of them has said to us that they want to make sure that this doesn’t happen to somebody else.

As desperate as they are to be reunited with their own children — and, I would argue, as a result of the trauma of separation — they are selflessly motivated to make changes to the system to protect others from having to undergo the same.

Let’s begin with the fundamental assumption that parents have the right and the ability to raise their children. My question is: why can’t parents point to section 2 of the act today and expect support from this system? If their children are in care and the government is paying a foster parent or a group home to support that child, why can’t these parents expect that support?

When two out of three children in care in B.C. are Indigenous, we are a long way as a province from righting the legacy of assimilation policies, residential schools and the forced removal of children that is so sadly woven into the fabric of our nation’s history.

We talk about reconciliation, but what does it really look like? Reconciliation means putting forward legislation that includes the United Nations declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action. This legislation does not.

Reconciliation means empowering ministry staff at all levels to fund programs and provide supports that focus on family preservation, as per section 2 of the act, and putting consequences in place when this does not happen. Reconciliation means giving the mother the benefit of the doubt, rather than subjecting her to a paternalistic, colonial process that erases her voice and her agency in the decisions that affect her the most. Reconciliation means providing social workers with a deep understanding of cultural practices and how they impact decision-making for parents.

I imagine a different future for families in B.C. It’s one where, if the Ministry of Children and Family Development knocks on your door, you open it up and gladly let them in — gratefully, willingly — because you know that they are there to provide you with the support that you need.

We have seen examples of the outcomes of programs like this in our province. Take the ’Namgis Nation in Alert Bay. If children there are in need of protection, they remain in contact with the biological parent or parents, who stay in the child’s life while they are supported in their journey to becoming healthier parents. As one social worker said in a recent news article: “It’s like two canoes side by side on the journey together.”

Social worker and director of Alert Bay’s ’Namgis Community Services Wendy White said: “Our role is to provide resources, information, referrals and support, but we are not the ones guiding the decision-making for the child.” Instead, it’s the family.

[3:30 p.m.]

I visited Alert Bay twice this year, and both times I stood in awe of the teenagers and youth who were advocating for the end of fish farms in our province. These are empowered young Indigenous people whose energy is focused on making the world a better place.

Yet so many of this province’s youth who have spent their childhoods in the foster care system and have no family canoe alongside them are focused on survival. Being in survival mode means that people cannot work to their full potential. How many children in our province are not reaching their full potential?

The cases that come to my constituency office are the latest in a long, tragic history of government intervention in Indigenous families. The overwhelming numbers of Indigenous children in our welfare system, both as a country and a province, are the result of a historical legacy that continues to this day. As settlers moved into what is now known as British Columbia, they attempted to assimilate the vibrant Indigenous cultures and nations who were already here.

But they didn’t just take the physical land itself. They targeted the children. Agents of the government would enter the communities and homes of Indigenous peoples and take their children from them, as is so tragically represented in Kent Monkman’s The Scream and Richard Wagamese’s Indian Horse.

The government tried to justify these practices. Marks of cultural difference were perceived as child abuse. Government workers saw birthmarks common in some Indigenous communities and deemed them bruises. Homes that looked different from your average European home were unfit. Religious, linguistic and ceremonial practices were called “savage” and in need of “civilization.” In this way, the apprehension of Indigenous children was justified and normalized in government policies.

The stolen children were placed in residential schools across the country. There were five of these schools on Vancouver Island and 18 in British Columbia. In the care of religious and educational officials, these children were forbidden to speak their own languages or maintain their religious and cultural practices. Often they were purposely placed in residential schools far away from their traditional homes.

The scale of the physical, emotional and sexual abuse was monumental. Many children died. Some were forcibly sterilized. These schools operated for over 100 years, and the last one only closed in 1996. In the middle of the 20th century, adoption was seen as another tool for assimilation. Again, this was grounded in the justification that government was acting in the best interests of Indigenous children.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

By this time, there were already multiple generations of residential school survivors. Therefore, intergenerational trauma was widespread. Children’s homes and communities were impacted by the far-reaching repercussions of residential schools. They were also often growing up in rural, underserved communities with low socioeconomic status.

Rather than addressing the root of the problem or providing Indigenous families with the resources to heal and support their children, social workers were instructed to remove the children. They were removed not only from their families and communities but also from the region, the province and, sometimes, the country.

From this arose the infamous Sixties Scoop, as thousands of children were apprehended and placed in the homes of non-Indigenous families. Some of the adoptive families were abusive or had internalized racist ideas. Some were located in completely different regions of Canada or even in other countries, especially the United States, which created jurisdictional nightmares for children and parents seeking reunification.

Sometimes children were simply lost. Once apprehended, government agencies would not often give the parents any information regarding where or with whom their children were. Between 1951 and 1991, Indigenous and Inuit children were taken into care and placed with non-Indigenous parents, where they were not raised in accordance with their cultural traditions nor taught their traditional language.

Take the case of Lillian Semaganis, for instance. In 1973, she opened the newspaper and found the faces of her two young daughters being advertised for adoption. She had not been notified that they were even facing adoption. When they were adopted, it would be decades before she found one of them.

[3:35 p.m.]

The fate of the other, a little girl named Cleo, only came to light after Lillian’s death. Cleo had been adopted out to a white family in New Jersey, far from her home in Little Pine, Saskatchewan. She had wanted nothing more than to go home to Little Pine to find her mother and her siblings, but she was not permitted to. Cleo’s family only discovered her fate this spring, 45 years later, in an investigation by CBC News.

The Sixties Scoop lawsuits claim cites the loss of cultural identity, psychological, emotional and physical abuse of those apprehended. The claim includes $750 million for the survivors, $50 million for an Indigenous healing foundation and $75 million for legal fees. I wonder how much the millennial scoop will cost future governments.

Nico Trocmé is the director of McGill University school of social work and principal researcher for the Canadian incidence study of reported child abuse and neglect, a national database that collects information on the characteristics of kids and families who come to child welfare’s attention. As reported in today’s Tyee, according to Trocmé, the main reason cited for taking Indigenous children away from their family and into government care is neglect. And neglect is another way, according to Trocmé, to describe poverty.

He says: “I’ve certainly never seen any evidence from any of the research to indicate that there is something endemic to First Nations families that would explain a higher rate of placement. It has much more to do with the high rates of poverty and the difficult social and economic circumstances they’re living in.” Yet the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has ruled that the government has been systematically discriminating against 163,000 First Nations children by refusing to fund services for them at the same rates as non–First Nations children.

At the same time, children across Canada are apprehended from Indigenous families at an astonishing rate. Children are apprehended because their families can’t afford adequate housing, food and clothing for their families and are being put into homes where foster parents are given funds to provide for the children. Today women are having their babies taken away from them hours after birth in hospitals across this province, including the hospital a short drive from here in the Cowichan Valley.

Young parents are afraid to access government services because they worry that government policies will result in the apprehension of their children. Once a child is apprehended, reunification is an uphill battle. It can be hard to even find information about where the child is or how they are doing. To avoid “emotional and physical harm, sometimes Indigenous parents are not even allowed to attend hearings regarding their child’s placement.”

There is an urgency to act. Every day that a mother is separated from her child is excruciating. As one expert put it: “We are not impounding cars.” But that responsibility to act urgently cannot overshadow Indigenous authority. We need to do the hard work urgently. We need to meet with every nation in the province urgently. We need to learn from people in the system urgently. And we need to follow First Nation direction urgently.

We cannot misuse that urgency as the right to blunder ahead with the latest iteration of government telling First Nations families how they ought to exist. Authority implies consent, something else that has been systematically denied to Indigenous peoples. Indigenous parents did not consent to their children being placed in residential schools or adopted by non-Indigenous families.

Indigenous peoples have also been denied consent over their own bodies, as demonstrated by the prolific sexual abuse in residential schools and the ongoing cases of missing and murdered Indigenous women across this country. They are still being denied consent in terms of energy development and land use in their communities, as demonstrated by Trudeau’s assertion that the pipeline will go through.

The very, very least we could do — and this is far too little and far too late — is give Indigenous peoples true consent and authority over the welfare of their children. In the words of one Cowichan elder: “Why do Aboriginal people need to prove to the white people that we can raise our own kids?” That brings me to the proposed legislation, Bill 26, the Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act.

[3:40 p.m.]

To start, I have significant concerns about how this was rolled out. The consultation was far from acceptable. Were the people who this will impact involved in its creation? Do we fully understand how it will play out in communities? Was this drafted and then given to a few First Nations, a few days to read it, and then proceeded despite their concerns? From what has been communicated to me, that is what has happened.

When asked about the legislation being tabled, the First Nations summit of nations and tribal councils in B.C. said that the proposed changes were prepared unilaterally. In a Discourse Media article by Brielle Morgan, the First Nations summit raises the concerns that the bill’s proposed amendments “do not go far enough in addressing the principles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples and the Truth and Reconciliation Commission’s calls to action and the Indigenous peoples inherent right to self-determination and self-government.”

The summit wrote: “The amendments do not lay the foundation for the more significant shift required to change the child welfare conditions where the overrepresentation of First Nations children in care remains the most serious issue. The summit says it hopes that the government will realize that more profound improvements are needed.”

Why, for example, aren’t we seeing a clear commitment, in line with the Truth and Reconciliation calls to action, to monitor and assess neglect investigations, to provide adequate resources, to enable Indigenous communities and child welfare organizations to keep Indigenous families together, to ensure that social workers and others who conduct child welfare investigations are properly educated and trained about the history and impacts of residential school.

Deputy Speaker: Member, you are the designated speaker?

S. Furstenau: I am. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Office of the Representative for Children and Youth, the office that has produced over 70 reports on child welfare in B.C., was consulted after the legislation was drawn up and given 24 hours to respond to the proposed changes — 24 hours. “It was a fait accompli,” the representative said. The delegated Aboriginal agencies, the agencies providing the services to Indigenous families across this province were not asked for input.

As quoted in a CBC interview, Mary Teegee, chair of the delegated Aboriginal agencies provincial forum expressed her concerns. “As a partner working with the province and also with the federal government, we were not consulted. There are a lot of issues and concerns, and we haven’t had the time to digest what those are.” Teegee also pointed out in another interview: “We get our mandate from chiefs, so we’re representing about 121 chiefs in child and family services, as per the band council resolutions, so by not talking to us, you’re missing that whole segment. We are the ones who provide the actual services in communities.”

Again, the urgency of a crisis should not be misused as a licence to skip the hard work that needs to be done in this province. This bill may be an improvement on the abysmal status quo, but it is built within the existing, problematic MCFD framework and far from self-determination. We will not change the course of history if we continue to follow the same policy-making format.

How these amendments came to be is as important as the legislation, and this process has not lived up to the expectations that many had of this government. It may give the ministry more tools for how they can involve First Nations in cases involving their children, but it will not, as drafted, do anything preventative to actually reduce the number of Indigenous children in care. It will not provide support to families before they get to that crisis point.

My greatest fear is that it will not make a fundamental difference in the lives of mothers pulled into the system. My constituency staff and I witness this reality in Cowichan Valley. Family after family comes into our office sharing deeply troubling stories about their interactions with MCFD, about families disconnected, children separated from their parents and from each other and from their culture. The common thread is that they’re Indigenous. Many have come from generations of families raised in foster care, and many have parents and grandparents who are survivors of residential school.

The solution to this crisis is both simple and complex. Simply, Indigenous communities need autonomy in child wellness. They are able to raise their own children within their own culture and can support each other through difficult times. Their resiliency is unmatched. Our legislation interferes with that autonomy.

[3:45 p.m.]

Bill 26 will do more to involve communities in the MCFD framework, but it does not give families more autonomy. How do we begin to address the humanitarian crisis with the sense of urgency that it deserves? We start by establishing the terms upon which legislative changes will be made in the future, terms that are established by First Nations leadership and community members and that come from a rights-based lens.

Next, any legislative amendments must be made after broad and deep consultation with First Nations leadership and community members, especially those who are impacted by the legislation — mothers, fathers, children, youth, parents and grandparents.

Keeping a mother who may have her own unresolved trauma together with her infant means taking different steps in child wellness than the universally applied approach we take today. Recognizing that the bond between mother and child, if nurtured, can be part of a healing journey, while breaking that bond perpetuates the same tragic cycle, must be part of this conversation.

Because of the lack of involvement and guidance from a broad spectrum of the people it will impact, I am having a challenging time with this bill. How is it — after all these years, all these apologies, all these admissions of systemic racism, abuse, discrimination — policy-makers are still trying to dictate how to deal with problems that have been created by these systems? Have we not learned from the countless mistakes?

How have we not implemented every recommendation from Chief Ed John’s report, all five of the recommendations from the Truth and Reconciliation’s Calls to Action and the hundreds of recommendations from the Representative for Children and Youth? How have we not stepped aside, making room and supporting First Nations leadership with funding? The people who have lived with these problems are best equipped to begin to address them. That means handing over the power.

I went to the theatre last week to watch Indian Horse. The movie, based on the book by Richard Wagamese, tells the story of a young boy apprehended into a residential school in the 1970s. The main character, Saul Indian Horse, is given the nickname Bambi by his hockey team. Like Bambi, Saul shows his strength, his resilience and his courage by the end of his story.

Indian Horse tells a story of how the state sought to destroy a people by targeting their culture, children, language and bodies. I tried to imagine what I would have done if I was an elected official during that time.

I hope I would have stood up and said no. I hope I would have seen clearly that the ways First Nations children were being treated were leading to their demise and death. I hope I would have believed them when they said that they were being sexually, physically and emotionally abused in the system. I hope I would have noticed that the children who survived the system took that trauma home with them and that they were finding addiction and suicide at higher rates than anyone else. I hope I would have recognized that none of it was in the best interests of the child. I hope I would have been brave enough to say: “No more. Not again.”

Hindsight makes everything clearer, but history holds lessons that we all need to hear. It breaks my heart that we as a country have repeatedly failed to learn these lessons and that in 2018 the state of Indigenous child welfare is deemed by a federal minister to be “a humanitarian crisis.”

Now we have a bill that is intended to help right some of these wrongs, but it is built within the system that perpetuates the problems. It was drafted without substantial involvement of a wide number of First Nations families or leaders. There are some potentially positive aspects. However, as has been pointed out, the analysis of the impacts on the ground is lacking.

Section 2, the addition of the principle that Indigenous communities share the responsibility of the upbringing of Indigenous children, seems a step in the right direction. But where is the funding? Is there a danger of off-loading to communities without adequate support? As the Representative for Children and Youth pointed out, and what I have witnessed in the application of the act as it stands: “Intention and words are one thing, but the implementation into practice is something completely different.”

I come back to section 2 of the act as it stands right now, which states: “…(e) kinship ties and a child’s attachment to the extended family should be preserved if possible; (f) the cultural identity of aboriginal children should be preserved.” And: “…aboriginal people should be involved in the planning and delivery of services to aboriginal families and their children.”

[3:50 p.m.]

The intentions are written. But how are government staff, who make decisions about families and children currently being held to account to uphold these guiding principles? How are they being held to account to uphold to existing service standards? What happens when they don’t? Where is MCFD’s commitment to ensuring that the current guidelines, much less the new ones proposed, will be upheld? What are the ramifications if they are not?

Let me read from MCFD’s service delivery standards document, particularly standard 2, children and families from Aboriginal communities. It states:

“To preserve and promote a child’s Aboriginal heritage and connection to his or her Aboriginal community, the following must be involved in all significant decisions when determining the child’s Aboriginal connections, heritage and descent and when assessing, planning and providing services for the child: the child, the child’s family, the child’s extended family, the child’s Aboriginal community, the identified delegated agency and any other community agencies involved with the child and family, and any significant people identified by the child and his or her family or Aboriginal community.”

These standards exist today. I ask again: how is MCFD holding itself to account when these standards are not met, when the guiding principles of the legislation are ignored? Where is the balance between determining when a child needs protection and when the child can be supported in his home and in the community? How will social workers determine this?

Section 92 of the proposed legislation gives the ability for the director to step aside and for a nation to take control of a file. The precondition of this is that the nation has its own legislation. How are nations going to get the support to create and implement that legislation? How many nations in B.C. currently have this legislation in place? What if a parent does not want the participation of a nation?

I have asked many mothers about their idea of information being shared without their consent, and many have been deeply troubled by this. “I don’t have a good relationship with my band,” said one. “I don’t want them involved.” What about two parents from different nations or a child from one band and a parent from another? How does the director determine which nation is informed or engaged?

Where is the federal government in this equation? Where is the commitment from the province and the federal government to work together with First Nations? What about the current federal funding levels that are predicated on apprehension? How does this legislation provide more support to families, more support to nations, create more emphasis on preservation and support of families?

There are so many unanswered questions, not just from me but from the people who are on the front lines of this crisis every day. There needs to be a lesson in this, and I hope that this government takes this seriously.

The work, moving forward, must start with and be led by Indigenous communities. The work, moving forward, must start with and be led by the people living the experience and suffering the consequences of a system that was designed to colonize and that continues to operate from a paternalistic, authoritarian position.

I will vote to support this bill because it is looking in the right direction, but I do not do so lightly, knowing its creation was not led by the people it will impact, nor were they given sufficient opportunity to comment. I will vote to support this bill with a solemn promise to stand up and say no — no more creating or changing legislation that impacts First Nations communities or families without following their lead.

J. Thornthwaite: I’m happy to stand and talk about Bill 26, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2018. I’m not going to repeat what the member for Chilliwack-Kent said in his remarks, but if anyone is interested in a holistic perspective, I would encourage people to check out his remarks.

The context of the bill is that the Ed John report was delivered in November of 2016 and greeted positively by the B.C. Liberal government at the time.

[3:55 p.m.]

The 2017 B.C. Liberal platform also said: “Recognized as a key priority, the government asked Grand Chief Ed John to do a comprehensive review of this area, and his report has provided guidance on the path forward. The government has already started implementing 40 of the 85 recommendations.”

This bill builds on the strong foundations laid by our government in fulfillment of several more of Ed John’s recommendations, most notably No. 41, that:

“The province consider the following amendments to the Child Family and Community Service Amendment Act in order to support improved permanency planning for Indigenous children and youth: strengthening of section 70 to include mandatory permanency plan­ning for all children in care; including a provision to ensure that for Indigenous children, permanency plans are jointly developed by each child’s family and community, including elders, cultural leaders, elected leaders and matriarchs; and providing a provision requiring independent review of permanency plans or an annual basis.”

That’s why I was surprised to see a letter from the First Nations Leadership Council, dated February 7, 2018, to the minister called “First Nations Early Learning and Child Care.” This is signed by the First Nations Leadership Council, which encompasses…. I would like to mention who they are: on behalf of the First Nations Summit, Grand Chief Edward John, Robert Phillips, Cheryl Casimer; on behalf of the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs, Grand Chief Stewart Phillip, Chief Bob Chamberlin and Kúkpi7 Judy Wilson; and on behalf of the B.C. Assembly of First Nations, Regional Chief Terry Teegee.

I’m not going to read the whole letter, but I do want to mention, on the record, that this is what a portion of the letter said:

“In effect, the province of B.C.’s action retroactively pre-empt the process mandated by the BCAFN, FNS and UBCIC” — i.e., the First Nations Leadership Council — “largely on the pretext of delivering much-needed child care funding supports to Indigenous com­munities as soon as possible. Although some of the province’s aims are to be welcomed, in addition to long-awaited new invest­ments in First Nations early learning and child care, the necessity of the new funding supports must not be a way to sidestep legitimate First Nations development — and indeed that these not be mutually exclusive. Funding must not be used to divide First Nations or undercut First Nations leadership and jurisdiction. We can, and should, be better partners in the era of implementing the UN declaration.”

They go on to say:

“A First Nations regional early learning childhood framework pre-implementation process is underway that will include a facilitated meeting of First Nations stakeholders involved in the policy and service delivery in winter 2018.”

Likewise, then, because that letter was dated in February, the next document that I’ve got here is the First Nation’s Leadership Council’s statement dated April 25, 2018, so just last month. Again, they mention:

“We are concerned that the amendments are technical and operational and do not go far enough in addressing the principles of the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous peoples, the Truth and Reconciliation Commission calls to action and our inherent right to self-determination and self-government.

“The amendments do not lay the foundation for the more sig­ni­ficant shift required to change the child welfare conditions where the overrepresentation of First Nations children in care remains the most serious issue.”Leadership on child welfare reform is needed at all levels of government, and we can only hope that…more profound improvements are needed and address some of the concerns we have voiced, and which went unheeded.”

I would urge the government to listen more to the First Nations Leadership Council, because obviously, as of April 25, they still were not satisfied. Listen to their call to action, because the amendments do not lay the foundations they have requested.

[4:00 p.m.]

I wanted to just put that on the record. Although our side will be voting for this bill, because we do support the premise, certainly it is evident from the First Nations Leadership Council that more work needs to be done.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister to conclude the debate.

Hon. K. Conroy: I’d like to thank the opposition members for their comments and just make a few of my own in closing this debate. I want to just reiterate some of the comments made. Also, I’d like to talk about a visit I had to Splatsin in Invermere a few weeks ago. I attended a water ceremony at the headwaters of the Columbia River with the Splatsin Nation. After the ceremony, a very moving ceremony, we had an opportunity to talk about the legislation and the changes.

I did hear from Kúkpi7 Christian, Chief Wayne Christian, who is the Shuswap tribal council leader. He talked about what these changes mean to his nation — the fact that his community has spent 38 years trying to work towards jurisdiction of child welfare within their nation. He said: “Finally, this will be able to happen with this legislation that has been tabled.” He said that this opens the door to stopping the flow of children into a system that he said was a very dark system. It did not work for First Nations governments and did not work for First Nations children.

He also talked about Grand Chief Ed John’s report. The members are right that this legislation stems from the recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John’s report, a report that had extensive consultation with First Nations leadership throughout the province. Kúkpi7 Christian said: “Honestly, it’s one of the first times I’ve seen a government actually listen to a report. I’ll be honest. I’ve been involved for 40-plus years, and I have not seen governments actually listen to actual reports that are commissioned, especially an Indigenous voice like Grand Chief Ed John’s.”

We are taking that very seriously. We are making sure that we are listening to that, looking at the recommendations from Grand Chief Ed John, as well as discussions that we’ve had with other First Nations leaders across the province who have said, “We need this legislation urgently in order to move forward on jurisdiction of child welfare,” but also on ensuring that we can lower the number. We can stop the issue of Indigenous children being taken into care. We can work with families, provide families the support they need prior to a child being taken into care, prior to…. Once concerns are raised, work with the community, work with the families.

It’s very much a part of UNDRIP that says that we have to recognize a child’s right to belong to their culture, belong to their community, to learn their traditions. That is very much part of UNDRIP, and that is part of this legislation.

I think that it’s important to also acknowledge that…. We talked to many parties about the bill, including the independent Representative for Children and Youth, and we appreciate that this is a first step, a very important first step.

I do want to extend my appreciation, my thanks, to the Representative for Children and Youth, who I speak with on a regular basis. He was one of the first meetings that I held when I became minister, and he is an extremely strong advocate for Indigenous children and families in this province. We are going to miss him. His voice on behalf of Indigenous children will be a great benefit to the province of New Brunswick. I say our loss but their gain. He has been an excellent advocate on their behalf.

It was also him that invited me to one of my first events I attended as a minister, called Ignite Your Spirit in the Cowichan Valley. It was an incredibly emotional day. We heard…. It was a healing circle from a number of Indigenous children in care who got together to talk about different issues. One young woman stood there and talked about the difficulties her mother had, and she was very emotional. She actually said that she thanked the ministry for being involved in her life and the fact that she had been taken into care. But she also looked directly at me and said: “Please help my mother so that my siblings aren’t taken into care, because that has to be your goal.”

It was an incredibly moving, emotional experience, and it resonated with me. She’s right. We do need to ensure that we provide those supports so that further generations aren’t taken into care.

[4:05 p.m.]

It was also in the Shuswap where I met an elder. I heard from an elder. She pointed out her daughter and her granddaughter. She said that she’d been taken into care by a social worker. It was one of the first things that the social worker did when she got her new job, and many years later, she said, the same social worker took her daughter into care.

She said she will do everything, and her daughter was doing everything, to make sure that her granddaughter, her daughter’s daughter, was not taken into care, that she had the love and support she needed and that she was able to be raised in her culture and her community and learn her traditions. She just said how critically important that was that she did do that.

She thanked us. She thanked the ministry for making sure that with this legislation, we were going to be able to bring in the supports to make sure that future kids can’t come into care. What she said was that the root of all of this was residential schools.

For anybody to think that residential schools don’t have an effect on children today…. They need to relook at history. They need to relook at what’s happened. The residential school has been very much an impact on children today, and we need to take that into consideration. It’s very much a part of what our guiding principles are, which the member for Chilliwack-Kent read into the House. It’s very much a consideration around residential schools. It’s very much…. Actually, one of the first five calls to action in the Truth and Reconciliation Commission directly relates to child welfare.

We have taken into consideration the reports from the Representative for Children and Youth’s office, those very excellent reports that have been written since that position was brought into this Legislature in 2006 as an independent body. The reports, the recommendations from the reports, we were using when we developed this legislation….

I want to say that we are looking forward to working with the representative, with the office, with the delegated Aboriginal agencies, with First Nations. I know that the First Nations Leadership Council had some concerns. They also said they welcome the changes. I know that the delegated agencies said the same thing. I know that Mary Teegee said she also welcomed the changes. They recognize that the Ministry of Indigenous Relations and Reconciliation will be leading the charge, will be leading the mandate to ensure that we are implementing UNDRIP, that we are implementing the truth and reconciliation calls to action right across the board of our government, to every ministry, so I want to make sure that that’s recognized.

For the member from Cowichan, I’m hoping that the changes will make it easier. The solutions that she’s talked about, the anguish that she expressed — these changes will be the start of ensuring that we can move in that direction. We are working with these changes to make sure that we have tools in place for social workers to make sure they can work with families prior to coming into care, work with the communities, work with ensuring that cultures and tradition are very much a part of the children’s lives.

This is a directive from myself as a minister. This is a directive from senior management staff that this will happen. The bottom line is that we have to ensure that fewer Indigenous children come into care. This is the very first step, an urgent step that was requested by many First Nations, and this is what we are working towards.

Mr. Speaker, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.

Bill 26, Child, Family and Community Service Amendment Act, 2018, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act.

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL
AND LICENSING ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 30, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. The federal government’s decision to legalize non-medical cannabis represents a significant change in public policy and one that will result in substantial and complex new responsibilities for all provinces, including British Columbia.

The Cannabis Control and Licensing Act is one of three bills that represent B.C.’s legislative response to this issue. It establishes the provincial regulatory regime for the possession, the sale, the supply and the production of non-medical cannabis, and it is a major milestone on the path to legalization.

[4:10 p.m.]

This bill reflects the extensive feedback we have received from stakeholders, Indigenous and local governments and tens of thousands of British Columbians. Indeed, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that when the initial consultation was launched on the website back in September, we received over 48,000 submissions, a pretty significant number of responses from people in this province.

This bill supports our government’s goals of prioritizing the health and safety of British Columbians, protecting children and youth, reducing crime and the illegal market and supporting economic development opportunities in our province. The bill establishes provincial controls over the sales of non-medical cannabis, and it establishes a licensing scheme for private retailers similar to what is currently in place for liquor.

To prevent organized crime from infiltrating the legal industry, it will require all retail licence applicants to undergo a thorough background check. And to support local decision-making about what cannabis retail looks like at the community level, it requires licensed applicants to have the support of their local or Indigenous government before a retail licence can be issued.

This bill also provides authority to set training requirements. This will ensure that those working in retail stores are knowledgable about the product, its risks and the laws with which they must comply. It also provides for a worker registration scheme which will include a background check. Worker registration or licensing requirements are in place in many jurisdictions and are a valuable tool to promote compliance with the law.

This bill also places restrictions on individuals with respect to possession, use and cultivation of cannabis. It prohibits possession of cannabis by minors — that is, persons who are under age of 19. Minors will not be able to go into a cannabis store or work in a cannabis business, and it will be an offence to give or sell cannabis to a minor. The bill’s age-related prohibitions are similar to the existing rules for liquor, and they support our goal of protecting children and youth.

The bill also establishes and restricts possession of cannabis by adults, in line with federal cannabis legislation. It imposes a 30-gram limit on the public possession of dried cannabis. It also provides for a maximum possession limit in private places, with the amount to be prescribed by regulation.

With Bill C-45, the federal government will allow Canadians to grow four cannabis plants at home for personal use. This bill adopts that four-plant limit.

I just want to remind members of this House that it is the federal government, with Bill C-45, that is establishing the limit, the maximum limit, of plants that an individual may grow at home. The number is four. It is not five. It is not six. It is four. We, as a province, could make it zero. We could make it one. We could make it two. We could make it three, or we could make it four. But we cannot make it more than that. We have chosen to go with the limit that the federal government has set in place.

The legislation also requires that plants be grown at home and not be visible from a public place off the property.

The legislation also sets restrictions on the public use of cannabis. It prohibits cannabis smoking and vaping in all the places where tobacco smoking and vaping are prohibited, as well as places where children commonly gather, such as playgrounds, skate parks and sport fields. In addition, it prohibits all cannabis consumption on school property and in vehicles.

During our public and stakeholder consultation, we heard from both landlords and tenants with concerns about cannabis smoking and cultivation in rental housing, particularly multi-unit housing. To address those concerns, the bill amends the Residential Tenancy Act to deem all existing tenancy agreements to include a prohibition on cannabis cultivation. Further, where an existing lease prohibits smoking, it will be deemed to also prohibit cannabis smoking.

Turning to compliance and enforcement, a strong enforcement regime will be absolutely critical in reducing crime and the illegal market. To that end, this bill establishes a range of cannabis-related provincial offences and an extensive compliance and enforcement regime.

In particular, it includes provisions that will support the establishment of a provincial cannabis safety unit. This unit will be tasked with dealing with illegal dispensaries and other illegal sellers across the province. It will be able to seize illegal cannabis and to impose financial penalties on the seller in proportion to the amount of cannabis seized.

[4:15 p.m.]

In addition, the bill creates provincial offences for which illegal sellers can be prosecuted.

Finally, the bill provides for exemptions for authorized users of medical cannabis where required to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation.

The Cannabis Control and Licensing Act is an important step in the transition to legalization, but it is only a first step. The federal government’s decision to legalize non-medical cannabis is a major shift in public policy. We fully expect that there will need to be — required to make — adjustments in the years to come. That said, we are confident that this bill provides a solid foundation for the safe implementation of legal cannabis in British Columbia.

M. Morris: Interesting times we live in. This is a very interesting bill that the minister has been stickhandling his way through, based on a lack of information that he’s getting from the federal government, because that bill is still before the House. I believe it’s tied up in the Senate at this particular time. We understand the pressure that government is under, waiting for the final product to be released from the House of Commons, if and whenever it happens. Sometime later this summer, I’m sure.

Our concern is still — as we’ve stated many, many times — surrounding the health of British Columbians, particularly our youth. It’s surrounding the public safety aspect of adding another product, I suppose, or another intoxicant to the mix, particularly when it comes to impaired driving and the complications and the ramifications that it has for that.

The other real aspect that we’re concerned about, as well, is mitigating the involvement of organized crime. It would be nice if we could eliminate them altogether. But the individuals that are out there making a dollar in the black market will do anything they can. They’ve got bigger budgets than we do. For everything that we do, they’ll find some counterweight or some way to counter what we do.

I’m going to start with one of the first concerns that we have with the legislation and with the legalization of cannabis — period — across the country, and that’s the age limit. I know the federal government has come out and said “18,” and they’ve given some leeway to the provincial jurisdictions to come up with something that works for them. I know this legislation suggests the age of 19, which is the age of majority. It’s the drinking age in British Columbia.

It’s based on: “If you’re old enough to drink, then I guess you’re old enough to smoke marijuana. You’re old enough vote. Then I guess you’re old enough to smoke marijuana.” But there are some health implications with that as well, and I want to talk about a couple of them here.

One was submitted by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering and Medicine, off their website. They state that there is substantial evidence of a statistical association between cannabis use and the development of schizophrenia and or other psychosis, with the highest risk among most frequent users.

That’s a concern. We have developing minds, and we have to be very cognizant of that, because as government, we’re certifying this product. We’re putting it on the shelf and saying: “It’s safe to use.” You have to be mindful of a few issues there.

Health Canada has on their website…. I took a couple of documents off their website. They talk mental health effects. It says: “In some people, cannabis use increases the risk of developing mental illnesses like psychosis or schizophrenia, especially in those who start using cannabis at a young age, use cannabis frequently — daily or almost every day — and have a personal or family history of psychosis and/or schizophrenia as well.” That will heighten their risks there.

For the effects on youth, Heath Canada goes on to say that “Cannabis use that begins early in adolescence, that is frequent and continues over time, has been associated with increased risk of harm.”

[4:20 p.m.]

I go back to some of my own personal experiences in this. Years ago I had a brother-in-law who smoked a lot of dope when he was 13, 14, 15, 16 years old. By the time he was 17 or 18, he was diagnosed with drug-induced schizophrenia. They attributed it to the amount of marijuana that he had smoked as a very young teenager. Unfortunately….

I got along very well with this individual. He was a patient at Riverview for most of his adult life, and he passed away in Riverview, into his 50s, from cancer. It was associated with lung cancer. He was a chain smoker as well. But he had become addicted to marijuana, and he smoked marijuana his entire life and suffered from some very serious psychosis as a result of that.

Personally, I’ve seen it. I’ve seen it as a police officer. I’ve seen it in many of the individuals that I’ve dealt with over the many, many years that I was an enforcement officer. I know many other police officers have said the same thing.

The Doctors of B.C. have also talked about the risks associated with young people, and they have recommended that we consider a higher age limit. Other than 19, they’re suggesting perhaps 21, or even older. The mind is developing up until you’re about 25, 26 or 27 in most folks. Maybe some of our minds are developing all the time.

The health issue that we see with this, I think, is paramount. We have to pay attention to that and do everything that we can to safeguard our youth. They are one of the most treasured things that we have in our society here, our youth, and we have to make sure that they’re given every opportunity to get that start in life that makes them prosper.

The other part of this is there’s secondhand smoke. It’s not the same as…. You’re driving down the road. You’re the designated driver so you haven’t been drinking, but you’ve got people sitting in the back seat and they’re toking up. That smoke is filtering out into the front of the car, and the driver becomes intoxicated. Any other individual in the vehicle could suffer the harms of marijuana smoke as well.

Smoking in provincial parks. I’ll talk a little bit about that later. Children frequent those kinds of areas — another thing that we have to be very cognizant of.

The access that is laid out in the act, the retail distribution, where the province talks about where these dispensaries or where these retail outlets will be set up. There’s really no mention in there when it comes to setting up in proximity to schools and playgrounds. I believe they leave it, perhaps, to regulation or to the municipalities. Again, I think a strong statement has to be made by the provincial government, saying that we will not tolerate dispensaries or retail outlets in close proximity to schools — and provide that direction to municipal governments so they take that into consideration in their zoning. Again, it’s just another layer to ensure that we keep our young folks safe.

The other concern that I have perhaps stems from my years as a police officer in enforcement. I look at the number of illegal dispensaries that we have in British Columbia. I know the minister shares a lot of these concerns as well.

They have proliferated in many of our towns and cities across the province here. In my mind, and everybody else’s mind, those are drug traffickers. They have assumed that they have some right because they’ve got a licence from a local government to set up a dispensary within their community. But they’re drug traffickers. We need to be mindful of that as we move forward.

I hope the government comes out strong. I haven’t seen it in this legislation yet. I think the government needs to take a very strong stance immediately and advise these illegal dispensaries and the individuals that are involved in the illegal grow ops that have been providing these dispensaries with the product, to say: “Listen, by the time this is proclaimed and comes into effect, your product is going to be illegal. And your dispensary is going to be illegal. You have to shut it down.”

[4:25 p.m.]

Are we going to tolerate any illegal product out there? This legislation is fairly firm on that, as is the federal legislation. This will weaken the legislation if we turn a blind eye to it and ignore it, and it’ll basically make this legislation moot if we don’t take a strong stance right from the beginning.

Organized crime. Again, take it from my enforcement days. I still associate with a lot of folks that are out there policing in the province and right across the country. Organized crime still plays a very important role in cannabis production and distribution in British Columbia and right across the country. Our goal is to ensure that we take that away, take those opportunities away from them. So how are we going to do that?

The legislation is relatively soft on this, from my perspective, when it comes to individuals that are currently involved in the illegal retail sales of cannabis in the province or the illegal growing of a product in our province to be considered to apply for a licence under this new legislation to open up a retail outlet somewhere in British Columbia.

I’m a firm believer that past behaviour is a good indicator of future behaviour in an individual. If that person has shown no remorse or no consideration for breaking the existing laws by trafficking in cannabis up to this particular point in time, then to expect that they are going to automatically assume that they’re going to get a licence under this new system I think is wrong.

Perhaps a cooling-off period. Maybe we should be looking at a suggestion here — and I’ll be introducing some amendments as we go through — that perhaps we need to look at a two-, three-, four- or five-year period of time so the individuals that have previously been involved in these illegal drug trafficking activities can demonstrate that they are adhering to the law. If they’re still interested after a period of time, then perhaps they can be considered for applications to open up a retail outlet.

The amount of cannabis that is currently out there I think is going to be problematic for us. There’s a lot, in my mind, unless things have changed immensely, but I don’t they have. I think production has increased since I’ve been involved in it.

I think there needs to be a strong statement made through this legislation or through the minister. This could be proclaimed as early as July or August or September or whatever the date is in there, and as of that date, then the police have been instructed to take the strict enforcement action of seizing all illegal cannabis that doesn’t comply with the federal legislation in the distribution or this provincial legislation that’s being proposed right now before the House — seize it. Anybody that is trafficking or in possession of cannabis will be facing prosecution or a ticket. A lot of these offences will be ticketable offences under this, and I think that they should be ticketed. We need to start with a very robust position with this particular legislation.

The other aspect of this that draws some confusion is the possession limits. The minister, in his opening comments, was talking about it and said that it was limits that were set by the federal government. So 30 grams of dried marijuana you can have in your possession. But then they talk about growing four plants in your house, and there will be some regulation developed as we move forward with this, I’m sure. The legislation alludes to that. It will talk about how much four plants would render you to be legally in possession of the marijuana in your house.

I’ve come across some grow ops and some plants that produced some pretty big buds and a lot of marijuana, and the production methods sometimes get called into question. There are substances in that marijuana that could cause health problems at the end of the day, but the fact is that you’re allowed 30 grams of dried marijuana, and you can grow four plants that could produce who knows what at the end of the day.

I know that the federal government has left this open to the province. They have allowed the province, as the minister has already stated, that it could be one plant. It could be zero plants. It could be two or three or up to a maximum of four plants.

[4:30 p.m.]

I know there are a couple of jurisdictions that have looked at this and decided, “We don’t want any plants growing in our homes, in our communities,” because of the safety aspect and because of a number of the other issues that this presents, particularly from an enforcement perspective. It’s just about impossible to provide any level of enforcement of that particular part of the legislation.

I’d love to see a suggestion that we don’t allow any home­grown product in the province here, not only from the enforcement aspect of it but also from the health aspect of it too. I go back to Health Canada’s website. They talked about the risks of illegal cannabis. One of their pages there says:

“There may be other health and safety risks associated with cannabis obtained illegally. For example, the THC potency of illegal cannabis is often unknown, so you could end up using a stronger product than expected. This could heighten or prolong effects such as confusion or anxiety.

“The quality and purity of illegal cannabis cannot be guaranteed and is frequently mixed with or contains pesticides, other drugs, heavy metals, moulds or fungi, or other contaminants.”

Here we are. We’re certifying a product to put on our shelves in British Columbia to sell to British Columbians and saying that everything is safe for consumption, yet we are allowing people to grow it in their homes. There’s no control over what goes into the growing of the marijuana in their homes. I think that it’s problematic and that we need to take a close look at it.

There’s another part of the legislation here on restricting public consumption of inhaled product and public consumption of non-inhaled product. Anywhere where smok­ing is prohibited in the province, smoking of marijuana will be prohibited as well. There’s nothing, though, that says you can’t eat a marijuana brownie or any of the edible products that are made from cannabis in a public place, which leads eventually to public intoxication.

Under the Liquor Control and Licensing Act, which this is fashioned after to a large degree, the police have the authority to arrest somebody for being drunk in a public place. They bring them into a detox centre, or in the smaller communities, they’ll put them in a cell until they’re sober enough to look after themselves and they’re not a danger to themselves or others.

There’s been a lot of controversy over the level of THC and the strength of some of the edible products, people overdosing on edible products. They take their first two or three bites. Nothing happens, so they continue eating it. The next thing you know they’re having a medical crisis. I think we need to be very wary of that and ensure that there’s some strength in the legislation that addresses the public consumption of even the non-inhaled forms of cannabis in the province here.

Our provincial parks are world renowned. They’re visited by families from around the world. We have some great provincial parks. Some of them are quite busy, particularly the ones that are closer to the larger centres that we have down here, in comparison to some of the more remote areas that we have. I read somewhere that they’ll look at, perhaps, some prescriptive measures, through regulation, that will deal with the consumption of marijuana in provincial parks.

Again, here we have facilities that are used by people from around the world. They bring their children of all ages to play and run freely through these parks and to enjoy the facilities, everything they have to offer. If there are no controls in these areas to prevent people from smoking marijuana in provincial parks, then, of course, that means that youth and children and people that don’t particularly like the smell would become offended at that. It poses not only a nuisance but also a health risk to the young people that are using the park. There need to be some strong statements within the legislation that will address that.

[4:35 p.m.]

Enforcement. The legislation talks about a director of cannabis enforcement. So a brand-new arm — more administration, more enforcement for government to get involved in, for municipalities to get involved in.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Again, I know that the federal government has offered some financial relief to the provinces to address the added administration and enforcement costs of this new legislation for the legalization of cannabis, but I think it’s woefully inadequate. Just look at the problems — trying to discern between the illegal and the legal cannabis once this act comes into effect; how a police officer, enforcement people or labs are trying to analyze the marijuana that’s out there to ensure that it come comes from a legitimate, federally licensed source, or not; and the amount of time and energy that it’s going to take, not only enforcement resources but the scientific resources and the court resources, everybody involved in that kind of a process.

I think that’s going to cause some pretty astronomical issues for time and costs. It’s not a matter of…. The police departments that we have — mostly, pretty much, right across this great province of ours — are already stretched to the max. They’re fully engaged in investigations and enforcement activities, without the added burden of the Cannabis Control Act. We add this new burden on police departments in Vancouver, in Surrey and in Prince George, no matter where they are, and it’s taking officers away from cases they’re already working on.

Drug-impaired driving. We talked about that the other day in this House — amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act to allow the immediate roadside prohibition program and the 90-day suspension of licences for people that are caught with THC levels in their blood. There’s a lot of work behind that. That legislation is still before the Senate as well. That legislation is quite fluid as we move forward, as this legislation will be as well.

The impact, outside of what I’ve just stated, trying to discern between the illegal and the legal marijuana and the dispensaries in British Columbia…. The impaired driving part is also going to swallow up resources and cause some major headaches for police departments and municipalities as they deal with trying to address the resource issues surrounding that.

In addition to that — I read it somewhere in the legislation — we have workplace incidents. A friend of mine was a logging contractor in the interior of the province. On a regular basis, he was talking to some of the operators of the heavy equipment and saying: “You can’t smoke dope while you’re operating that machine. No, you can’t smoke over the lunch hour.”

I think there is going to be emphasis placed on employers, if there’s some incident that takes place where somebody gets hurt. The employer has to show due diligence in training his employees to ensure they all know that they’re not supposed to smoke marijuana before they operate machinery or while they’re working for that particular company. That’s also going to cause some stresses on existing resources as well.

The illegal dispensaries that we’ve had in this province have been operating under the auspices of…. They’re medical dispensaries. They’re dispensing “medical marijuana.” That term, to me, has been watered down some. The federal government is going to be looking after medical marijuana. They’re going to continue to ensure all the licences and permits and registration of the people that are permitted to use marijuana. They maintain that registry for police officers to have access to in the province.

I also think that the province needs to put pressure on the federal government when it comes to medical marijuana, medical cannabis, and say: “Listen. If this is going to be deemed to be medical, why does it not fall under the common drug review?”

[4:40 p.m.]

Why is it not subject to the same rigour of testing that all other medications in this province and in this country have to go through in order to be declared a substance that Health Canada approves — that the common drug review says, “Yes, this is a therapeutic, and it looks after these kinds of conditions”; that it falls under the purview of the Drug Benefit Council in British Columbia to make sure it fits the needs, whether it’s covered under PharmaCare or whether it’s covered under the various insurance programs? But it’s been anecdotal, more than anything else.

There is no real evidence. Health Canada has a lot of information on it. There’s a lot of information on the website with the Canadian Medical Association. But we need to increase the rigour with which cannabis is looked at to make sure that the…. If it’s genuinely medical, then it should be prescribed through a pharmacy or some other organization.

I’d like to adjourn debate and reserve my right to speak again when we come back.

M. Morris moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 25 — REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT
MARKETING AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 25, Real Estate Development Marketing Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 23, Local Government Statutes Amendment Act, 2018, in Committee C. In this chamber, I call continued second reading debate on Bill 30.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL
AND LICENSING ACT

(continued)

M. Morris: To carry on, I know the minister shares the concerns here. If we truly have medical marijuana, then it should be truly treated as a medicinal substance, administered through a pharmacy or some other legitimate medical dispensary. We have this bill, and the federal legislation is legalizing recreational cannabis in British Columbia. That should provide the opportunity for people so inclined.

I think this is a good opportunity to separate the medical part from the recreational use of marijuana, just so that we’re clear on the law. It’s been very muddled, this past number of years, with our illegal dispensaries that we have set up in many of the communities we have here.

I won’t carry on too much longer, but I do want to say that, in our view, there are some weaknesses in this legislation that need to be addressed. I’m going to be introducing some amendments to try and address those weaknesses that we have here and see where it takes us. We have a number of British Columbians who are vulnerable to the legalization of cannabis, and we want to make sure that they’re protected in every way that we can.

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks.

A. Olsen: It’s an honour to stand today and to speak to Bill 30, the Cannabis Control Act. It is a time, I think, in this country, as provinces across the country do work to comply with the federal decision to legalize the recreational consumption of cannabis….

[4:45 p.m.]

I think for some in this country, it’s been a long time in coming. For others, I think we’ve heard other perspectives of still quite a bit of concern around this particular product. I would say that the feedback that I’ve received from…. People who’ve gone through the bills have said that there’s some tentative and general support for it, that the government has taken a fair approach to it. There are definitely some concerns to the approach that the provincial government is taking and, certainly, some concerns to the approach that the federal government is taking.

I think we see concerns on both sides. So that might suggest that the minister has done a good job in striking balance as we are creating a piece of legislation, a framework, from the ground up. You get criticism on both sides. Those that think you should go further are criticizing you, and those that don’t think you should go that far are also giving you criticism. Well, you’ve struck a nice balance right down the middle.

That has been the feedback that I’ve received so far. Of course, I’ve also received the feedback that if in fact we don’t make amendments to this bill right now, then the entire world is going to come down around us, and that that will be the end of things. Of course, I think we know that that’s not entirely the case. I think, as was suggested the other day, that there are going to be quite a number of amendments and changes as we understand how this bill is put into action.

I think, from my perspective and, certainly, from some of the perspectives I’ve heard, that we are taking a rather conservative approach to this. We’re testing it out, we’ll make some changes as we learn, and we’re really responding. As has been pointed out by the previous speaker, we’re responding to the approach that the federal government is taking, which is still to be passed. Yet we’ve got to get our action together and put our work in place for when the federal government does eventually pass their legislation through both Houses there in Ottawa.

To hear the member and the official opposition speak, the B.C. Liberals’ approach to this is a much more conservative approach than you’re going to hear from this member or from our caucus with respect to the approach that we should be taking to substances, substance abuse, addiction. Our approach is not a top-down, strict, government, command-and-control approach. That’s the approach that we’ve heard — that this legislation really doesn’t go far enough, and lots of concerns.

Certainly, we have a responsibility to ensure the health and safety of our citizens. That is primarily why we do take more of a harm reduction approach to substance use, substance abuse, addiction — more of a perspective that we need to have better education on the impact that these substances have. As well, we need a system and a government that provide support to citizens who are struggling with drug addiction and substance abuse.

In this country, we’ve seen — indeed, on this continent and around the world — that the war on drugs simply hasn’t worked. We’ve heard a perspective laid out here in the official opposition’s position that we need really strict and strong enforcement. That’s what we’ve had. We have right now a situation in which legalization of cannabis is largely being moved because those laws that are in place are being flouted by large percentages of the population.

In addition, we have a fentanyl crisis where folks are dying of fentanyl and drug overdoses. Yet we pretend, to a certain extent, in our society in modern times, that in fact the strict drug enforcement, command-and-control, top-down approach to this is working.

[4:50 p.m.]

I heard this morning Heather Hobbs from AIDS Vancouver Island on the CBC when I was on my way into town. One of the things that she said very, very clearly — and she’s working with folks who are oftentimes right on the edge — is that criminalization is not working and that we need to get government to move and change the relationship which we have — criminalizing people for what is a medical issue, a health issue, an addictions issue. Criminalizing these folks does not help.

Our approach here is much more one of harm reduction, of treating medical issues as they arise. For decades now, as we’ve taken the war-on-drugs approach, we’ve seen that really fail.

We take a look at the bill. We’re given a general manager and a director. It’s very much modelled after the bill that we have for liquor distribution in our province. I think that there have been some changes within liquor distribution which we don’t see in this bill, and perhaps we will.

In fact, I hope we do see some amendments over time so that some of the opportunities that we see within liquor distribution and the production of liquor — whether it be beer or ciders or other products of alcohol that are created in our communities — and that people…. I mean, the craft industry, for example. I see an opportunity here for British Columbia.

We’re creating very much the same board. I’ve got some questions, when it comes up, as to the powers that are being given to the general manager and to the director — how they can use those powers, how it’s intended for them to use those powers.

I have some issues, when I read the bill, with this notion of cannabis in plain sight. People can be arrested or charged for having their….

Interjection.

A. Olsen: I spend very…. The minister, the Solicitor General….

Interjections.

Deputy Speaker: Members, through the Chair.

A. Olsen: Anyway, I know that when I read the bill, with­out having to tweet or to read Twitter, there is a section called cannabis in plain sight. As we get to that bill, the Solicitor General and Public Safety Minister will be happy to know that I’m giving him forewarning. I’ll ask a question about it — and a thumb’s up down there, so thank you. And I believe very little I read on Twitter.

One of the pieces of this bill that I will like to canvass more deeply in the committee stage is some of the issues that arise around non–private property owners. I think that this is going to be a challenge. Part of the challenge with cannabis, and it being different than alcohol — I don’t need to tell anybody this — is that you smoke one and you drink another. When you smoke one, you create a problem for people around you, whereas if you drink one, it’s really just a problem that you’re creating for yourself.

Nonetheless, there’s this whole interplay in this bill around: you can consume in public as long as it’s not in front of kids and around parks and around parks where — I can’t remember the exact language — kids frequent. So you can consume publicly, as if it were tobacco, yet then you can’t be intoxicated publicly. That can be a problem.

I’m getting direction from the minister as we go.

Anyway, there’s this whole interchange. As well, if you have a place that you own that you can consume it, that’s fine. If you rent or…. There are all sorts of layers to this which I think might marginalize part of our society. Let’s just simplify it. I’m concerned about how those that would be marginalized already in society might be further marginalized by this bill. We can take a look at that further as we get into committee stage.

[4:55 p.m.]

Also, I think that around the craft market, the craft piece of this…. I think we’ve seen in British Columbia, especially with beer but also with spirits, that we have got incredibly creative and imaginative people who make wonderful products. Around the world where there has been greater levels of socialization for alcohol products than there is for cannabis…. I recognize, from some of the interplay in this House right now, that it’s going to take some time.

As we send our beers off to world championships, we celebrate them. We celebrate them on the morning news. We won nine of 14 awards — just British Columbia breweries, microbreweries — at the championships. We wake up in the morning, and we hear that on the radio. That’s something that is celebrated, the ingenuity of small business owners, the ability for them to…. They’re chemists. And the same goes for this industry as it matures in our province in a legal fashion.

I think what’s important is that as we have seen with alcohol production, there’s vertical integration there where you can produce and also have a place that you can sell. I was at my friend’s winery, and he’s got his wine there that he produces and he sells. Then there’s also a way for him to supply…. In a geographic area, there’s a way for him to supply local stores directly. The paperwork goes through the liquor distribution, but for small-end producers — small-scale producers, I should say — some of the rules have been amended and changed to allow for that.

As our laws and as we understand how those laws work and, actually, as we set them up…. That is something that I think needs caution, patience, always. We’re setting these laws up, and we see how they are executed. I think this is something, an opportunity, for British Columbia as we go forward for the craft industry.

Finally, I think there are a couple more things that I’d like to point out. I did hear the minister the other day point out the significant challenge I think we’ve got right now with Washington state, British Columbia — state, province, federal government. The federal government in the United States runs that border. I think there’s going to be a lot of people who are going to be sufficiently confused by that, and it could cause a lot of problems.

What I hope is that both the state and the province and the federal government of Canada can figure it out with Washington — D.C., that is — because I think there are going to be people who are going to be confused. I don’t think they’re going to intend to break any laws, and that’s going to catch a lot of people.

Again, I think the goal here is to not criminalize people. Even those that say that the laws here go way too far…. The fact of the matter is that we are criminalizing far too many people with this product, and I think the goal here is to not criminalize people on both sides of the border. Yet the American federal government runs that border. I know that British Columbians, Canadians could get themselves into a lot of trouble at that border, the same as our American friends coming north. I think it is really important that we do sort that out.

Finally, I would say that there is…. If I go back to the point where I was talking about private property owners and perhaps lack of a place for them to consume cannabis, one of the ways, of course…. Other provinces have done this. They have created cannabis lounges, or for alcohol products we call them pubs or public houses, a bar. I recognize the significant challenge of smoke indoors. I recognize that.

[5:00 p.m.]

I think one of the ways we can get around and ensure there is a place for people to…. I mean, after all, this is a controlled substance, but they’re going to be allowed to participate and consume it recreationally. Perhaps we want to take a look at having cannabis lounges in some way, and perhaps that’s a further evolution of the law as we go forward.

In general terms, we’re very supportive of the government taking this action. I think the minister and the ministry and the drafters have done a good job in crafting a framework for us to work within. I hope that we can identify some challenges that come up and address them promptly as we go and evolve, as this industry in this province evolves.

There’s an opportunity for British Columbia here to be progressive, to be leaders, to lead the country. I think in some cases in this legislation we are, and in other cases, we can push it forward and even be more progressive.

With that, I’ll take my seat. I thank the Minister for the bill and will come down and visit you in just a minute.

Thank you, Madame Speaker, for this opportunity.

D. Barnett: Of the three bills relating to cannabis that the government introduced this week, this is the most broad and, I suspect, the legislation that will touch most people’s daily lives. So it is very important that we get this right to ensure public safety, to conserve limited police and government resources, and also to make sure that we’re focusing on the right areas and not tilting at windmills.

This seems to be a pattern with this government. One could be forgiven for thinking that too many bills were rushed too quickly. There are simply too many examples of bills with vague language, no specifics or obvious questions that remain unanswered. For example, look at the cannabis possession limits defined in this bill.

In public, people will be permitted 30 grams of dried cannabis or its equivalent. Here, the government got it right. You can argue about the amount, and I suspect many people will, but at least we’re talking about a measurable, definable amount.

Compare that to the private possession limit — the amount people will be allowed at home. It says it’s based on the reasonable yield from four plants. There is an enormous amount of variance here. For some people, it’s just a question of planting four plants and seeing what happens. But for others that have developed an impressive level of sophistication in hydronics and horticulture, their plants will not only be bigger and produce more product but substantially bigger and substantially more product. Why would they be allowed more? Put another way: why would they be penalized for having a green thumb?

Subjective limits are impossible to enforce. So why bother including it at all? We are told the specifics will be prescribed in regulation — another ongoing theme in this session. In the meantime, we can only guess.

I also have questions about public consumption. I appreciate there are good intentions here, and I appreciate the effort being made to make sure cannabis is not used in schools or playgrounds. But the bill says that cannabis can’t be smoked or vaped in places where children gather. This is obvious when it comes to playgrounds, sports fields or the beach, but there are plenty of other grey areas. What about Robson Square in downtown Vancouver or Centennial Square here in Victoria? Again, this isn’t immediately clear.

The bill also specifies that this only applies to smoking or vaping. Edible cannabis products will essentially be legal to consume anywhere. Again, our expectations should be reasonable. Expecting police to monitor and enforce restrictions on edible products would almost certainly be impossible, but we will create a strange double standard here — illegal to smoke cannabis in a city park but legal to eat a pot brownie. It’s only fair to ask how police will be expected to handle public intoxication.

I also have concerns about the government infrastructure. The Solicitor General Ministry will create a new position: the director of cannabis enforcement. The director will also have a new community safety unit. Nowhere in this bill does it explain how big the unit will be, what resources they will be given or who pays for it.

[5:05 p.m.]

I understand the minister’s intention is probably to start small, be flexible and most likely add resources as the workload increases. But there isn’t even a ballpark estimate as to size, resources or if the ministry has the physical space to accommodate the director and their team.

There will be administrative challenges for police departments, as well, and a significant drain on resources. Every department and detachment in this province will need drug recognition experts, testing equipment and the training to use it. Who will pay for this? I understand that Ottawa has promised some money, but it’s not here yet. We are asking police departments to carry the water until then, or indefinitely.

Finally, I have questions about this legislation and how it will apply to Indigenous nations. The bill says the legislation will have maximum flexibility and gives the provincial government authorization to negotiate agreements with Indigenous nations with respect to cannabis. This seems reasonable. But it’s only fair to ask: what will happen if, hypothetically, an Indigenous nation says they want to ignore provincial and federal law and sell untaxed cannabis? Would the law be enforced?

I am looking forward to raising these questions with the minister and his staff in committee.

J. Thornthwaite: I, too, am looking forward to putting my remarks on Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, and I’d like to make some comments about health effects.

I know that a lot of people think that cannabis is kind of a natural substance, and I know that there is some talk about it helping anxiety or even depression. Certainly, I think some physicians are recommending cannabis for reasons such as those. But I just wanted to make sure that everybody was well aware that there are also detrimental and somewhat tragic consequences for some people with the use of cannabis, particularly in our youth.

I didn’t have to go very far. I went to the government of Canada website, “Cannabis and mental health.” With the mental health effects, which are quite pertinent on their website, it says:

“In some people, cannabis use increases the risk of developing mental illnesses such as psychosis or schizophrenia, especially those who start using cannabis at a young age; use cannabis frequently — daily or almost every day; have a personal or family history of psychosis and/or schizophrenia.

“Frequent cannabis use has also been associated with an increased risk of suicide, depression and anxiety disorders.

“There is evidence to suggest that combining tobacco with cannabis can increase the strength of some psychoactive effects and the risk of poor mental health outcomes, including addiction.”

I must say that when I’ve spoken in my role as the official opposition critic for Mental Health and Addictions, I have spoken to people that have schizophrenia. I’ve also spoken to parents of children that have severe mental illness, and many of those people say that there are signs of the severe mental illness, and in one case the diagnosis of schizophrenia, after profound usage of cannabis when they were young. So I really want to make it clear that it’s not necessarily a panacea for making people less anxious or whatever.

Also: “Research shows the brain is not fully developed until age 25. Thus, youth are especially vulnerable to the effects of cannabis on brain function and development. The THC in cannabis affects the same biological system in the brain that directs brain development.”

[5:10 p.m.]

It has been associated with “increased risk of harms when it is frequent, continues over time,” and as I said before, “begins early in adolescence.”

From the Health Canada fact sheet, they go on to say:

“Cannabis use that begins early in adolescence, that is frequent and that continues over time has been associated with increased risk of harms. Some of those harms may not be fully be fully reversible. Adolescence is a critical time for brain development, as research shows the brain is not fully developed until the age of 25…. This is because THC in cannabis affects the same biological system in the brain that directs brain development.”

In addition, the executive director of the B.C. Schizophrenia Society, Deborah Conner — she represents over 3,000 members — says that they support restricting access to recreational marijuana to anyone under the age of 25, which also echoes a position of the Canadian Psychiatric Association.

Then there was an article that was published on June 23, 2017, in the Globe and Mail, called “Mental Health Experts Underscore Dangers of Youth Cannabis Use.” Diane McIntosh, who is a professor of psychiatry at UBC — she’s also a psychiatrist and a former pharmacist — says: “Research has shown heavy cannabis use plays a ‘clear role in the early onset of psychotic disorders…’ noting schizophrenia can develop up to six years earlier in young people who consume the substance regularly…. That is the age when a person’s brain is considered to have finished developing.”

She goes on to say: “If you’re 35 years old or older without any mental illness and you want to smoke pot, ‘I don’t care.’” But she’s worried about the younger kids, and I am too.

Chief among the messages, as she went on to say, is: “Even though a direct link has yet to be proven between using the drug and mental health issues, the evidence shows the substance can trigger psychotic episodes and negatively affect youth with a family history of mental illness, such as schizophrenia.”

Although I recognize that the age is going to be 19, I caution the provincial government to perhaps consider the words of the experts with regard to youth mental health — at least up to age 25.

I would expect, then, that this government will have a very robust education campaign to be able educate families, educate parents as well as youth, about the possibility of the increased incidence of mental illness with cannabis.

T. Wat: I also rise to speak on second reading of Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. Many of my constituents in Richmond North Centre have come to express their concern about the fact that legalization of cannabis would touch so many aspects of their daily lives, especially for children and teenagers, and even for those people who have never touched cannabis personally in their lives. That’s why it’s very important that the government does it right and takes time to study and review the issue thoroughly instead of just rushing to pass the legislation.

Unfortunately, the bill does not get it right. This is really a rush job. The bill was introduced late into the session without providing enough time for members of the House to study, debate and improve upon it. Also, the government does not seem to have spent enough time talking with different municipalities and British Columbians. The bill does not reflect their beliefs, their input and their opinions.

The city of Richmond continues to have concern about this rollout. The Richmond city council is scheduled for a meeting tonight at 7 p.m. to consider some of the city’s own regulations. The Richmond city report suggested that several items, including asking the B.C. government to impose a temporary prohibition on the use of lands in the agricultural land reserve, ALR, for cannabis production.

Richmond city councillors have long opposed marijuana facilities on farmland for a number of reasons, including a concern that growing marijuana will limit the growth of other products. Instead, the council believes cannabis facilities should be built on industrial land.

[5:15 p.m.]

This particular request, along with other suggestions in the city report, was approved by councillors at a general public meeting on May 7. Tonight city council will vote on whether or not to submit this request to the provincial government.

In addition to the above request, the city will continue to prohibit cannabis resale in all zones. They are concerned about home cultivation and the fact that minors between the ages of 12 and 18 can possess up to five grams of cannabis.

Adding to those, two Senate committees have also reported on the bill, and both committees suggest senators will push for major changes. The legal affairs committee says that home cultivation of cannabis should be banned and there will be a limit to how much of the plant someone can have in their home. The Aboriginal Peoples Committee says that the bill should be delayed a year to give First Nations more time to figure out how to manage marijuana in their communities.

The Senate is set to hold a vote on the bill on June 7, and if senators make major amendments, there is an opportunity that the legislation will be going back to the House, where MPs can decide to accept or reject the amendments and forward it back to the Senate. So we can see that even the federal legislation is pretty fluid.

I do recognize that the government is facing challenges from Ottawa, which has not given British Columbia or any other provinces enough time or resources, but the government’s cannabis bills have serious gaps that will have consequences, and the government must not do a rush job. The government must and should consider public opinion and public safety.

Secondhand smoke and marijuana regulations should be addressed. Public education and discussion forums should be conducted in different communities for feedback on hygiene issues of growth and its effect on households and the cost of cleaning up.

The MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie has proposed several amendments to help to address them. They include a cooling-off period for current dispensary owners from applying for a retail licence. This would do several things. It would help to prevent illegal cannabis from being sold alongside legal marked and taxed products. It will help disentangle this industry from any connection to organized crime, and it will create a level playing field for distributors who have followed the rules, because right now those who broke the law and openly sold what was still a prohibited substance will get a head start.

Another proposed amendment is a proper education program for K-to-12 schools to teach kids about the hazards of cannabis. This will ensure that children, teenagers and parents all have the information they need to make informed decisions. We do the same for alcohol, tobacco and sex education. Why not cannabis?

The MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie also proposed banning the use or sale of cannabis in and immediately adjacent to parks and school zones. This will ensure that kids are not exposed to a product they may not be ready for.

Again, as I said earlier, I do understand the difficult situation the minister is in — that the federal government has not given the provinces enough time or resources. That doesn’t mean that we should repeat their mistakes. Cannabis is dangerous for children and teenagers, and there is potential strain on provincial resources. I urge the minister to consider the amendments of the MLA for Prince George–Mackenzie and, if need be, recall the House in a month or two with a much more improved bill.

Hon. D. Eby: I understand there’s another bill coming up, so I move adjournment of the debate, briefly, for the committee to come in and present the bill.

Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House will recess.

The House recessed from 5:18 p.m. to 5:19 p.m.

[L. Reid in the chair.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 23 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
(RESIDENTIAL RENTAL TENURE ZONING)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 23, Local Government Statutes (Residential Rental Tenure Zoning) Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

[5:20 p.m.]

Hon. D. Eby: I call continued second reading on Bill 30.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 30 — CANNABIS CONTROL
AND LICENSING ACT

(continued)

G. Kyllo: I’m happy to take my place and speak today….

Interjection.

Deputy Speaker: I’m sorry?

Hon. D. Eby: Madame Chair, I failed to say “and I move second reading.”

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Mr. Attorney.

The member for Shuswap, please continue.

G. Kyllo: I’m happy to take my place today and speak with respect to Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. As was set out by the member for Prince George–Mackenzie, there are a number of concerns, I think, that we all collectively share in this House with respect to this new bill that is before us.

I appreciate that the federal government has been less than forthcoming and timely with respect to providing proper direction, I think, for our province. But having said that, there are a number of areas of significant concern.

Obviously, as a father and as a grandfather of now six grandchildren, I’m very concerned about protections for our youth. As has been spoken about in this House and as evidence has been shared, there are significant risks for youth that might be consuming cannabis before the age of 19. Increased potential risk for schizophrenia and those sorts of things are very concerning to us. So we want to make sure that the government takes the necessary time and puts the rigour behind ensuring that our youth are going to be protected in this province as we see the legalization of cannabis move forward by the federal government.

As well, considerable concerns around public safety. Whether we’re talking about potential for those using cannabis on our roadways or our waterways, we again want to make sure that not just the laws are in place but also that law enforcement has the necessary tools and the training in place in order to provide adequate investigation — and, where needed, charges, where there are people that might be operating vehicles or boats under the influence of cannabis.

These are significant concerns. I read an article in the newspaper earlier today that set out the considerable impact on law enforcement where the devices, apparently, for identifying the use of cannabis in one’s system haven’t yet been fully developed or determined by the federal government. So in the interim, we will see that officers have to get trained up and provide that opportunity, I guess, for them to actually identify those that are under the influence of cannabis through — similar to what we saw many, many years ago — the roadside investigative checks and sobriety tests and walking the line and that sort of thing.

As well, we have to see, I guess, finite determination when it comes to the actual application for distribution or for the retail of cannabis within communities. I appreciate that that will be under the rigour of local governments, but there’s also been a reference to First Nations also having to provide that opportunity to review those applications. And a question for the Attorney would be whether there has actually been determination of whether First Nations may potentially have veto power over the retail of cannabis within their traditional territories.

There’s been some discussion with respect to changes in the Residential Tenancy Act. I think increased concern and consideration that should be put before the House is whether there’s an opportunity or, I guess, a potential risk for those that might be renting a home or a property where there is a restriction from the landlord about the actual growing of any cannabis on the property. If the landlord determines or identifies that there is a growing of cannabis on the property, does that give the landlord, then, immediate opportunity to evict their tenants?

I don’t have any statistics, but I would imagine that within rental properties across British Columbia, there are probably a significant number of rental tenants that do, even currently, even though it’s illegal, grow cannabis within their rental property.

[5:25 p.m.]

I wonder if the Attorney has given consideration to what potential impact that may be — where you may have a number of folks that are renting properties across British Columbia and that, potentially, should this new bill become enacted, suddenly could be actually evicted from their homes or their rental properties.

As well, I think, some of the numbers I’ve heard are that the cannabis cultivation industry in British Columbia is between $5 billion and $6 billion — a significant amount. If we consider the amount of illegal marijuana that’s sitting in different retail distribution centres across the province right now, when the legislation comes into effect, what would happen to all of that existing inventory that’s sitting and stocked on businesses’ shelves?

I do know that back earlier this year there were raids on a number of different Scotch rooms across the Lower Mainland — where a legal substance like alcohol was actually confiscated from these businesses, not because it’s an illegal product but because that product had maybe not been procured through the appropriate legislated manner, or maybe the appropriate taxes had not been paid. So here we have, you know, Scotch rooms across the Lower Mainland where products were actually being confiscated from these operators.

If we have a look at what might be coming forward when we see the legalization of cannabis in B.C., the amount of product that might be sitting in different stores of these dispensaries across British Columbia, what would be the government’s approach to dealing with that? Is there an intention to actually pull all that product back? We could literally be talking about tens, if not hundreds of millions of dollars in product that, I guess, would continue to be illegal because it’s there illegally now.

I’m just wondering if there has been consideration to what is going to happen with that product. I certainly appreciate, from a health and safety aspect, the fact that the intent with the new legislation will be additional measures to provide, at least, consumer confidence that the product that’s being purchased is somewhat safe to consume.

Now, I’ve heard rumours recently — because the product even currently, although it’s illegal in many jurisdictions, including British Columbia, is sold by weight — that there are a number of cultivators that actually add different products and carcinogens to the soil, which are absorbed into the plant and which increase the weight of the plant by up to 10 percent. That product, unfortunately, is not regulated. There are no regulations in place that actually monitor that. So people that might be purchasing that product currently are actually purchasing a product that has carcinogens within it.

I certainly appreciate the fact that the new regime, as proposed by the federal government, would provide a bit more rigour and consumer confidence in ensuring that the product that is available for sale would be void of or not include any of those potential carcinogens. Again, it’s just something yet that I think we need to be giving thorough consideration to in this House.

It’s a very complicated bill. I certainly appreciate that the government has not necessarily had the time that should be provided to provinces in order to line up the different legislation — to have a good, thorough consideration of all of the bills that might be required and to give consideration to all those unintended consequences.

With that, Madame Speaker, I will take my place, and I thank you.

Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I just want to speak briefly to some of the commentary, and I thank members for participating in this debate. It is an important piece of legislation. There are a lot of issues, a lot of strong views on all sides of this.

As was pointed out by my colleague from Saanich North and the Islands, I’m criticized by some for this legislation being “too progressive, too allowing.” They’re saying: “You’ve gone too far in that direction.” Others are saying: “You’ve not gone far enough in that direction.” That tells me that we’ve probably got a good balance. We’ve managed to…. You know, there are people, on both sides, not happy. That tells me that we’ve probably struck the right approach.

[5:30 p.m.]

I say that because we took a significant amount of public input into this legislation. We consulted with local governments. We consulted with Health, with Aboriginal communities, First Nations, with the industry, with veterinarians; you name it. The tentacles and the issues raised by legalization have been myriad, but at the end, we have a piece of legislation that is the beginning.

I do want to address some issues. We looked very closely at the age of majority, as has every province. That’s why we’ve aligned the age that we have with the age of majority, being 19. I think we have made strong statements around organized crime. We do know that that is one of the key elements of this legislation. It’s one of the key elements why legalization is taking place.

We also know that it is not going to be easy. It is going to take time. In Colorado, it has taken four years to get organized crime down to 30 percent of the market. It is a significant challenge, and we are under no illusions as to that. But we believe the measures that are in place will, in fact, help us to achieve our goals on that front.

When it comes to retail, the member and I have discussed this many times. We have said that people can apply, but that does not mean that they are going to get special consideration. We’ve made it clear that there is no grandfathering of those existing dispensaries that may have been given a licence by communities.

The most notable ones, of course, are Vancouver and Victoria. They’re going have to go through the same hoops and a far more rigorous background check. They’re going to have to go through the same things that everybody else is going to have to go through.

Possession is defined by the federal government. There are those issues around…. I take the member’s point that you can get a lot out of four plants. But again, they can have that inside their units, their home. They can only take 30 grams outside — only have 30 grams outside — and that limit is per household. It’s not that if you have four people, each can have four plants. That is an area I want to make sure where we’re very, particularly, clear.

We looked at the issue on the zero. Again, that relates to those constitutional questions. I know some members have mentioned edibles. “How are you going to…?” Well, the reality is, edibles aren’t legal yet, so this legislation does not deal with that. That is something that will come in the future once the federal government has put in place the rules and the framework around that. So that is still to come, and I expect further debate on that.

On the issue of medical cannabis, absolutely, I think I’ve been clear in public statements that we think that five years is too long to wait. The federal government needs to understand that that is a significant source of illegal product at this time, using a system that they have designed, that they have put in place, that is not working the way that I believe it should. That is something we will continue to push, that we will continue to raise with the federal government. They need to deal with that now, not later.

[R. Chouhan in the chair.]

All in all, one of the things I want to say to those who are critical and to the public in general…. One of the key lessons that we learnt down in Oregon and Washington, one of the key messages that was driven home to us with literally everybody we met, was to have a tight framework at the beginning, because you can relax or change over time to meet circumstances.

It’s a lot easier to do that than it is to sort of do what many people want, which is, in essence, let a thousand flowers bloom all of a sudden and then find out that things are not working and try to rein them in. That would be a major challenge. So we think we’ve taken the right balance with this.

Finally, I want to make one comment about something I’ve heard. I don’t usually single out, but on this, I absolutely will. The statement by the member for Richmond North Centre that this legislation will allow 13- to 18-year-olds to access cannabis is absolutely false. It is not true in any way, shape or form. If anybody goes out and peddles that nonsense, they are spreading an absolute falsehood and a complete and total untruth. I cannot express myself more strongly on that statement.

I don’t mind taking criticism on any aspect of legislation. That debate is legitimate. That debate is absolutely necessary in this legislation.

[5:35 p.m.]

One thing I will not stand by and let go unchallenged is the idea that somehow government legislation is sanctioning or allowing young people to access cannabis when the legislation does not do that in any way, shape or form. If members think that I have been strong in that, it’s because I feel very strongly about that.

I just want to get that on the record and make that clear. Other than that, I have appreciated the debate, and I look forward to the discussion in committee stage where we can get into these issues in greater detail.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 30, Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. M. Farnworth: At this time, I call, in Committee C, Bill 18, committee stage. In the House, I call second reading debate on Bill 31.

BILL 31 — CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION ACT

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 31, the Cannabis Distribution Act. The Cannabis Distribution Act establishes the province as the exclusive wholesale distributor of non-medical cannabis in B.C. This is a model that has worked very well for liquor and allows the province to have direct oversight of the cannabis supply chain as we transition from an illegal to a legal market.

Further, it is a model that was upheld by the Supreme Court of Canada in the Comeau decision. The majority of provinces and territories, including Alberta, Ontario and Quebec, will also implement public wholesale distribution systems for non-medical cannabis.

With respect to retail sales, B.C. will have a hybrid public-private retail system. Again, this is similar to what we have in place for liquor, and it is a model that is supported by a majority of the nearly 50,000 British Columbians who provided feedback during the public engagement process last fall.

This bill provides the required authority for public retail sales, both on line and in bricks-and-mortar stores. Private sales will be regulated under Bill 30, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act. To implement public distribution retail sales, B.C. will leverage the expertise and resources of the Liquor Distribution Branch, which has a long track record of effective management of distribution and sale of a controlled substance. This will allow B.C. to have cannabis distribution and retail up and running later this summer.

The intent is, therefore, to appoint the general manager of liquor distribution as the administrator of the Cannabis Distribution Act. As administrator, the general manager will have significant independence to make the day-to-day decisions required to operate the cannabis distribution centre, implement an on-line sales platform and establish public cannabis stores in the communities that want them.

The bill also requires the administrator to administer the act so as to promote social responsibility in relation to cannabis. This means that the administrator will have an important role in educating the public about low-risk cannabis use. It also means that social responsibility will be a critical consideration in the administrator’s decisions about which cannabis products can and cannot be sold in British Columbia.

Working with Bill 30, the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act, the Cannabis Distribution Act will enable a B.C. distribution and retail system that supports our provincial goals of promoting public health and safety, protecting children and youth, reducing crime in the illegal market and supporting economic development opportunities in our province.

With that, I look forward to the comments and discussion from members of the House.

M. Morris: I certainly appreciate the minister’s comments on this and the complexities around introducing this new legislation in British Columbia. Quite frankly, right across Canada, it’s presenting some unique challenges.

[5:40 p.m.]

One of the aspects about this distribution legislation is that it says that government may not sell unless produced by federal licensees, and it’s very, very explicit in terms of where they get their marijuana from.

I stated this earlier on in the debate over the Cannabis Control and Licensing Act with respect to the amount of illegal cannabis that’s already out there and what government might intend to do. We’ll have a competing interest in cannabis the minute that this act comes into force with the perhaps tonnes of illegal cannabis that’s already out in the market. It may reflect on the ability to operate retail outlets that produce a profit and cover all the expenses, and I’ll talk about that in a little bit.

The other aspect under this legislation that I see as possible is the on-line system for sale of cannabis to consumers in British Columbia. The concern there again is access to youth and access to individuals that shouldn’t be in possession of cannabis and how that might be regulated under an on-line system. How do we ensure that a young person has not perhaps come into possession of a parent’s or an adult’s credit card, ordered the cannabis on line and had somebody else representing the individual at the door when the cannabis is delivered to the door by a delivery agency? Again, during the committee stage, we’ll get into some depth on that.

The other aspect of this is…. There’s a consideration for input from municipalities and First Nations groups throughout the province. I’m curious as to what the prov­ince’s position will be if we have a community or a First Nations that says, “I don’t want any retail outlets within my community. We disagree with this. We don’t want to sell it in my town or my village or my city,” if it goes that far. I’m curious to see what the province’s position will be on that, whether they will say: “No, we will be putting a cannabis distribution centre retail outlet in your community.” So that needs to be worked out.

Government being the sole supplier to the retail outlets in British Columbia. Again, I know there’s some pretty strong legislation that’s being proposed here, and being proposed under the other bill that we debated earlier, with respect to those that want to disregard those rules. There’s legislation being presented in this bill that talks about inducements for officials within the cannabis distribution system and some fairly significant penalties surrounding that.

My experience with organized crime…. Those who are bent on the illicit activities out there will stop at nothing to intimidate, to blackmail and to do whatever they need to get their product on the shelf. There is going to need to be some very stringent rules in place and some very rigid discipline involved in where the product that’s being displayed on the shelf comes from.

Does this regime, this act, this statute, provide the ability for analysis? Yeah, it does. But how rigorous will that analysis of cannabis be? Every bit that comes in, every lot that comes in for sale — whether there’ll be a sample tested in that lot to ensure that it’s coming from a legitimate, federally licensed organization. I think that step needs to be in place, particularly in the infancy stage of implementing this legislation in British Columbia, for the first several months, or perhaps a year or two, to ensure that the products that we have on the shelf in liquor stores are safe.

Again, the health issues around that are paramount. If you, as government, are authorizing this product to be sold in British Columbia retail outlets, government is telling the people out there that that product is safe. Some very rigorous steps have to be taken to ensure that that takes place.

[5:45 p.m.]

The other aspect of this bill before us talks about the revenue generated from the retail outlets. At the end of the day, the manager or the administrator of the retail outlets will have to look at the amount of cannabis that’s been sold, the amount of money that’s been made in that particular day, and subtract the administrative costs of running that store off that total. Anything in surplus will be deposited into general revenue for the province.

If there are insufficient funds in there, then this bill also allows for the neighbouring liquor store to come in and put money into the cannabis distribution system to ensure that it’s not costing government any money at the end of the day. If that still fails to provide the necessary revenue to run the operation, then this bill authorizes the money to be taken out of general revenue to cover those costs.

It’s interesting to see these aspects in there, and I can under­stand why they’re there. I hope we never get to that particular point in time where we’re taking money out of a system to support a cannabis retail system. Is this going to cost government money at the end of the day? That’s one of the other concerns that I have and many of my colleagues have.

We need to ensure that the product is priced to eliminate the black market or to mitigate the black market activities and involvement in this to the extent possible. If the price is too high, then the black market will flourish; if the price is too low, perhaps it won’t even cover the costs of administration for running that particular store. It will be a question that we’ll ask during the committee stage. Does the cost of running that store include the wages, the salary, the overhead and everything to do with running that particular individual retail outlet that government has or the private sector implements, as a result of this dual retail system that the government is proposing?

There are a number of things that are raising eyebrows in this legislation. I look forward to discussing it in full during the committee stage to explore some of the sections that are in there. There are definitions that I think require a little bit of exploring to make sure that it covers all aspects of the issues involved with those definitions.

Again, the legislation provides the ability to share information with police officers, police departments. I want to ensure…. There are a couple of subsections in this legislation that might prevent that from happening, at the end of the day. Again, enforcement is difficult enough as it is, adhering to the laws and the regulations and the jurisprudence that we have in Canada. We want to make sure that with this new legislation we’re not impeding the effective enforcement of this kind of legislation in the future.

With that, I’ll conclude my remarks, and I look forward to the committee stage on this.

A. Olsen: It’s my pleasure to stand today and speak to Bill 31, the Cannabis Distribution Act. This, of course, is the second piece to the work of the Solicitor General and the minister responsible for public safety with respect to legalizing cannabis. It is a decision that the federal government has made and that now the provincial governments are responsible for developing the framework for that to exist, for the recreational consumption of cannabis in our society. I had an opportunity to speak at length and much deeper on Bill 30 than I will here, on Bill 31.

I look at the structure that’s being created here, and I think we recognize it to be a very familiar structure, because it, in fact, mirrors and will be controlled by the Liquor Distribution Branch. So this is a situation that we’re very familiar with here in this province. We’re having a centralized distribution model, and I think that it’s a good place to start, frankly.

[5:50 p.m.]

When you take a look at what the opportunities are, going forward, I think there are some opportunities to make some needed amendments to this to allow certain things. I know I spoke in Bill 30 to vertical integration, the ability for someone to produce a product and to sell it in a licensed establishment on their site or produce a product and distribute it to a local area, much like we see with wine and spirits and ciders and beers that are produced in the craft market. So I think that there are some amendments that can happen in the future. But for the most part, I and my colleagues are supportive of the approach that the government is taking to this.

We’re supportive of the framework that they’ve put in place, and I feel confident that we’re going to be able to put ourselves in a position to be compliant with the federal government and the desire to legalize the recreational use of cannabis and look forward to continuing the discussion and the debate in the committee stage and going in depth, in detail, on each of the sections we have in front of us.

With that, I’ll take my seat and thank the minister for the work on Bill 31.

P. Milobar: It gives me pleasure to rise and speak to Bill 31 in regards to the upcoming cannabis legalization legislation.

Recognizing that it is a federal direction that we’re headed down, and the province needs to make sure that we do have some form of regulation in place, that’s a good thing that we see the government moving forward with this legislation at the end of this session.

I do have some concerns and comments to make, how­ever, about Bill 31 in general, a lot of it having to do with the direction the government is taking in regards to distribution and, more specifically, on the retail side.

Coming from a background…. In my previous worklife and private business ownership life, I owned a private liquor store and ran bars. I don’t any more, and I don’t own. But I have a pretty good insight into the whole distribution model as well as the retail side. When you have a government and private industry mix where the government is the distributor, the regulator, and the government turns out to be actually your retail and stiffest retail competition, it makes for a very difficult framework to try to operate under if you’re a small operator, an independent. In my case, I was an independent store of one. So you’re really fighting a very large entity when it comes to the government.

It always makes people have, I think, a little suspicion within the industry when you see rules and enforcement actions taking place that tend to impact a private operator heavily, and government operations on the retail side tend to go unscathed. The response is always: “Well, they’re subject to the same fines.” But the reality is it’s the taxpayer paying that fine as the operator of that retail store. It’s not the individual employee paying the fine. It’s not the individual employee or the operator of the store that sees that financial risk for flouting the rules or not paying attention to the rules.

The reason I bring that up is because when you look at that model and look at what’s being proposed in Bill 31, it’s dramatically different than what the government told us just a few short months ago. Now, I guess we shouldn’t be overly surprised that perhaps there’s yet another broken promise coming from the government. But when the legislation was first being discussed in broad terms, it was a very clear statement by government. The government was going to get into the distribution side, and they would create a warehouse much like the liquor distribution branch. In fact, they paralleled the example of the liquor distribution branch, and they would not — and they were emphatic — be operating retail stores.

Now, what we see very quietly being snuck in through this legislation is the ability for the government to operate retail stores. That was never talked about a couple of months ago. It was never even mentioned. In fact, it was emphatically highlighted that that would not happen. Instead, what we now see is an expansion of government retail into a private marketplace. I understand and fully support that there should be….

[5:55 p.m.]

If you’re going to control distribution and if you’re going to regulate and try to track sales and make sure proper taxes are being collected and that nature, you should be in charge of the distribution network as a government. That I don’t take issue with. But there’s absolutely no reason for the government to expand government even further by going into more retail than they already currently are.

We don’t see an expansion into grocery stores by government. We don’t see government trying to sell sofas. We don’t see government trying to sell a whole bunch of other products in the marketplace if they have no problem jumping in where they think that they might be able to be the regulator, be the distributor and be the retail competition as well. That doesn’t work. It creates uncertainty in the marketplace.

It requires the government to start going out and leasing and hiring retail staff to do a retail service job that the private sector is more than willing to step in and do. The private sector full well knows how to go out and lease a retail space. The private sector full well knows how to go out and make sure that they hire staff. And frankly, the private sector, by and large, knows how to provide a better customer experience at the retail side of things on a wide range of products.

It is not core to government service to have to operate a retail operation — frankly, of any type. But to now add more retail to an existing mix of government does not make any sense.

You do not need a government employee to sell cannabis to generate the tax revenue that will come to government. A private operator can sell that exact same product, still have to collect and remit the same amount of tax that a government store would. The only difference would be the government would not be paying for leases and not be paying for staff. So the government would actually make more money if they allowed the private sector to be the retail operations versus the government trying to suddenly jump in and do another cash reach within this market.

The other problem I have with it is that in all likelihood, one of two scenarios will happen. Either, like they are in liquor, they will become the discount retailer with the most expensive retail locations to lease and the largest inventory carrying costs of any operation within the liquor world. Yet they sell at the cheapest price possible, which is totally contrary to how regular retail would work if you had that type of a competitive advantage.

What we will see with cannabis is one of two things. Either the government stores will come in and undercut the pricing to such a degree that on one hand, it’ll keep the black market, I guess, at bay to a certain degree. But it certainly won’t open up the market to private industry because the private sellers will never be able to meet those margins, never be able to operate at a loss-leader, like the government would be able to do, and make sure that they show a strong distribution profit coming in to justify why the retail side is losing dollars.

That, or they will actually try to operate it as a proper business, which I have my doubts around. But if they do, with the labour costs, with the benefits structure, with everything else that will come with staffing those government stores, that means the pricing model will have to be such that if they’re truly trying to operate at a profit, the pricing structure will be such that there will be no incentive for people to go shop there. The pricing will be so out of whack to what the market is willing to pay, especially in the infancy of this whole program, that we’ll see a huge problem.

What we see is another attempt to grow government into an area where we don’t need to grow government. It does not provide any more public safety. I’m all for the public safety aspects of these bills, but it doesn’t provide any extra public safety. What it does is it actually creates an impairment to the private business sector investing as they’ve been expecting to invest, to be able to open their stores, to be able to specialize and provide that unique service that we’re seeing in other jurisdictions that have already legalized, down in Washington and other areas.

That whole incentive is being wiped out by the government backtracking on a promise and a commitment that they would not be in the retail cannabis side of this bill. Instead, they’ve broken yet another promise, and they are now full steam ahead with retail cannabis.

[6:00 p.m.]

The other problem that I have with this is that when you look at the clauses that will allow municipalities a veto over this, on the one hand, that’s great. Municipalities are always looking for ways to have a little more control over what happens within their municipal boundaries. But it’s a little unclear how, exactly, that’s going to work, and it’s a little unclear how effective it will even be.

I know there are some municipalities that have insisted that they do not want to see cannabis inside of their municipal boundaries, and that’s fair enough. But when a bridge is a one-minute drive away, I would expect to see some clusters, on the opposite side of that bridge, of cannabis retail.

That then puts pressure on other municipalities in terms of how they are going to have to try to legislate around restrictions and distances, recognizing that they could essentially, for the sake of cannabis sales, see their population increase by a third of what would normally happen within their retail environment, simply because one jurisdiction allowed a prohibition puts pressure on another jurisdiction to either overpopulate with cannabis stores than they might normally do or actually have closer boundaries than they might normally want.

Again, this is a piece of legislation that’s a little unclear when it comes to that, and it creates some issues when you’re looking at what happens municipality to municipality. It starts to create more uncertainty out into the communities as to what can really happen.

I can hardly wait for the day…. We haven’t heard how this is going to be addressed. We’re all assuming that everyone on the cannabis bill in the general public will be accessing it and no longer worrying about seeking out prescriptions for the medicinal side of cannabis. The reality is: there are a great many people that already have prescriptions, that already have the right to access cannabis for medical purposes.

I have not seen — and I could stand to be corrected on this — where the government is prepared to handle what happens when someone is walking down a sidewalk or standing in a foyer and decides that they need their medication right then and there. We don’t prohibit people from taking their other medications when they’re out and about on their daily business.

I’m not sure how this legislation or any of these legislation packages will actually properly address what happens when someone invokes their right to medicate and starts to either smoke or ingest in areas where it’s been specifically said that you can’t, under the legislation, unless you have a prescription. I would suggest that there will be challenges around people saying: “It’s my human right and my ability to be able to medicate as needed, when needed, and I should not be restricted to my home because I need to medicate at two o’clock in the afternoon, which means I could never leave my home until after two o’clock.”

That’s the reality of what happens when you have chronic pain management issues. You don’t just take one pill and you’re done for the day. You tend to have to medicate a couple of times in the day to manage your chronic pain issues. And I feel for the people that do have those chronic pain issues. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t be able to access the ability to try to properly medicate and manage their pain management issues.

Again, we don’t tell people: “You can’t take your Tylenol 3 on the bus.” We don’t tell people: “You can’t take your Tylenol 3 when you’re sitting in restaurant.” We don’t tell people: “You can’t take your Tylenol 3 when you’re out in the shopping mall.”

I don’t know how, if their prescription for pain management is for cannabis, any of this is going to help those people that are in medical need when the security guard walks over and says, “Excuse me, you can’t be smoking here,” and the answer back is: “Well, that’s actually my medication, and here’s my prescription. Who are you to tell me I can’t have my medication when I need it?” So that’s a problem as well.

As I say, though, the fact that we see government so eager to jump in to the retail side of things is quite shocking — that there was so little discussion until this bill came forward. In fact, it was the exact opposite discussion.

[6:05 p.m.]

I think that’s why we didn’t see people being too worried a couple of months ago when there was a preliminary discussion around what could be contained in a cannabis bill. It was because the government went out of their way to try to tell everybody that they were only going into distribution.

There’s quote after quote after quote out there that the government was only going into distribution, and they would distribute it like the Liquor Distribution Branch, and it would be managed by the Liquor Distribution Branch.

Now, with those parts, they’re following through. What they’ve inserted without any public debate until this 11th hour, when we’re scrambling, trying to accommodate and rush through legislation after legislation on a hurried basis, something as important as this… The simple fact is that the government has gone back, has broken their word and has now decided to jump into the retail environment.

There has been no explanation why it’s needed. There has been no explanation to the broader public as to what the change of policy was. We could probably FOI and make sure that we cover people’s personal emails to maybe find out why. But the reality is that there’s absolutely no public safety benefit to the government operating retail cannabis stores.

In fact, Mr. Speaker, I caught the tail end of the Solicitor General being quite emphatic about public safety towards youth only 15 minutes ago. He was very impassioned about it. He takes it very seriously. I take him at his word how seriously he takes access of youth to cannabis.

If the Solicitor General, taking him at his word that he takes it that seriously, truly felt that private retail would create a problem access point for youth, being a man of his word as he is, there is no way he would have included private retail in this legislation. He would have seen that as a risk to our youth, and I believe he would have prevented that. Instead, he sees that it is manageable — that it can be regulated, that it can be enforced — and he’s made sure there is a private retail side to this.

What has been inserted, though, is the government retail side. There is only one logical explanation for why the government would want to jump in on the retail side of things: because the government sees it as a cash cow. If the government sees it as an end run to try to bring in more revenue, then they need to talk to the Union of B.C. Municipalities about it, and they need to talk to the federal government about it.

The provincial government seems to be afraid that they might be missing the boat on revenues. Other provinces, from day one, at least were upfront with their citizens about the fact that they were going to operate provincially run cannabis stores. That is not what the case has been in British Columbia.

For a government that says, “We are so transparent,” and wanting to consult and wanting be open and wanting to have conversations with stakeholders, I find it incredible that there was no public discussion about this at all. In fact, it was the exact opposite to this discussion all the way along, up until the bill finally got introduced with a week to go, week and a half to go, two weeks to go in our legislative calendar after sitting around for almost ten weeks waiting for this to come forward and another three weeks of a break where we were back in our constituencies doing work.

There has been ample time to try to have this brought forward, to at least have had even a preliminary heads-up to people at the beginning of this sitting that there was a move to change the legislation to, in fact, broaden it to talk about retail sales, but there hasn’t been.

I know members opposite feel that I’m droning on and on and on about the government being part of retail sales, but this is our only opportunity to try to shine a light on it and hopefully have people realize that there are some fundamental differences here to what was talked about, what was promised, what was discussed with the public, with municipalities very publicly several months ago.

[6:10 p.m.]

When you look at the municipalities, it will be a very interesting dynamic when you consider that they can now tell the province whether or not they want to have a government retail store in their city. If this turns into a bit of a cash bonanza for the province, should the municipality be worried that discussions quietly behind the scenes turn into: “Well, we’d love to help you with your school project, but without those cannabis retail profits, it’s kind of tough to justify it to your city.”

Will there be conversations around hospitals? Will there be other types of conversations? We don’t know. The fact that the province is allowing municipalities to pick and choose whether or not they even sell the product — a federally legislated, mandated product — is the equivalent of letting municipalities decide whether or not they want a paint store in their municipality.

I can totally understand restricting municipalities. I know that in the city I’m from, in Kamloops, there’s no pre-zoned land for a neighbourhood pub whatsoever. Each requested pub comes in. They have to justify their site. They have to ask for a site-specific zoning amendment to be able to operate a neighbourhood pub. The neighbourhood gets to engage in that process. Sometimes they’re successful; sometimes they haven’t been successful. I’m okay with that because that’s that whole public hearing process. That’s making sure that neighbourhoods and communities take charge of what’s going in, within their specific municipality.

What you can’t do is just flat out say: “Although you are legally entitled to operate in Canada, although you are legally entitled to operate in British Columbia, you flat out can’t operate within the boundaries whatsoever, in any way, shape or form. There is zero process for you moving forward to try to get an operational licence within this municipal boundary.” That doesn’t exist.

You could see one of two things happen. You could see a municipality agree to have only private stores and not government stores — that doesn’t seem to be addressed — or only government stores and not private stores. That doesn’t seem to be addressed. Again, massive holes, massive questions in this legislation.

That really isn’t that shocking. I’m hard-pressed to come up with very many bills that have been passed, to this point within this government’s tenure, where there hasn’t had to be some sort of amendment or change after the fact, in spite of us pointing out that that’s what was going to happen. Even in a short time, it still turns around and actually has to be amended and happen.

When I think of things as simple as the municipal election act that had fundamental flaws in it and needed to be corrected — that’s the type of stuff I’m talking about. On a complex piece of legislation like this, compared to what that was…. I believe that’s factual — that there were some fundamental flaws within the municipal election act that were changed and that we tried pointing out.

That’s the problem we have — that these are very complex issues that we have around cannabis. In spite of how much time it’s taken to roll these out, there still seem to be some very large problems with it. There’s still some regulation that could happen — which, again, is problematic on something as new as this. We’re once again seeing pieces of legislation created, with massive authority for orders-in-council and regulation to be done, as opposed to debating possible changes, debating what’s working or not working in this House, the people’s House, to make sure that people’s views and opinions are being shared.

The fact that government wants to jump in on the retail side before there’s even an identified problem in attracting private operators to provide this service to communities is mind-boggling. Will the government need to stand in line and request a licence like everyone else?

If that’s the case, I can tell you right now that in the case of Kamloops, they’re lined up out the door, waiting to try to apply. Kamloops has identified that around maybe 20 stores maximum would be adequate to service everything. So will the government be prepared to stand in line and be number 25 in Kamloops? Or will the government find a way to get to the front of the line and say: “Deal with our applications first. Then you can deal with the private sector.” That hasn’t been identified in this either — how that’s going to operate.

[6:15 p.m.]

The reason it’s a concern is because it wasn’t identified as even an issue three months ago or four months ago when the Solicitor General first started talking about potential rules and regulations that we could see coming forward in this session. He was absolutely clear. There would be no government retail of cannabis in British Columbia — 100 percent, full stop. They would be distributing. They would not be retailing it.

I think, as people get reminded of yet another broken promise — that they actually weren’t supposed to be in retail competition with government stores…. When the private retailers start to realize that the fix is in to make sure that they don’t get the prime real estate areas, that they don’t get the expedited rezonings they may need, that the government somehow manages a way to get to the front of line and gets to keep way more tax revenue than they’ve probably ever talked to the municipalities about, trying to offset costs….

I think the municipalities are going to have to, and probably will, start to think twice about this. Just like we’ve seen them review and look twice and have concerns about the employer health tax, yet another fact that UBCM came up with. I’m not inventing that fact. There was a big report. As they looked into that piece of legislation and that piece of taxation changes, the municipalities commissioned a report and came up with a lot of concerns.

What that shows me is that as the municipalities start to look into this shifting line in the sand that is creating an unlevel playing field between government retail and private retail, that is expanding government…. We have not even heard what the plans are for how many stores the government wants to operate, how many people they plan on employing, what the costs are going to be for that, how the government is going to fit out all these retail stores in such a short time frame as fall, what their expected rate of return is in operations. All of those fundamental questions have just vaporized away, almost like someone was using a vape pen.

That’s the problem here. We have 3½ or three months…. I’ll say three months. I’m not sure the exact date that it was first brought out in terms of suggested regulation. We’ll say it was around three months ago. It was quite a few months ago. The Solicitor General, to his credit, was trying to give people a heads-up of what to generally expect in the upcoming cannabis legislation. That was very clear. There would be no government retail. Very clear. And here we are, staring, with government retail coming right at us.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The problem, again, with all of that is that through all the discussions with municipalities about tax revenue shares, it’s been predicated on the federal government transferring tax revenues to the provincial government and the provincial government and municipalities discussing how the tax revenues will come into play.

Given that the first time the public or municipalities would have seen that there was going to be government retail, government profit centre, extra government revenues coming in on the backs of the private sector yet again…. I’m sure that municipalities will be interested to know how that revenue split will now work, given that they will be the ones bearing the brunt of the rezonings, of the applications, of the public worry, of the neighbourhood worry.

They will be the ones with the extra policing costs, with the extra bylaw costs, as this all rolls out and things settle out over the first few years. That would happen regardless of who is in power when you’re going from no legalized system to a legalized system.

Bottom line is this. I have some significant concerns around Bill 31, obviously. I have some significant concerns about the expansion of government when it hadn’t been talked about up until now, on the retail side of things. And I have significant concerns because, as the Solicitor General has even pointed out in the previous bill, this is not about protecting youth from getting access to cannabis. He’s confident that’s been covered off in the previous bill.

[6:20 p.m.]

If he’s confident enough that private retailers are not going to be a risk to youth accessing it, why, oh why, other than the almighty dollar, is the government suddenly adding the clause in there that they want to be able to operate government retail cannabis stores? There is no public safety aspect to that decision, other than a consistent attempt to grab more revenue from a system that could easily be handled by the private sector.

Thank you for this time on Bill 31.

Hon. D. Eby: I rise with respect to second reading on Bill 31. I heard the member make a number of comments, and I also heard the member for Richmond North Centre make comments. I wonder if they sit in the same caucus meetings, because they are so far apart in their perspectives.

Actually, I think it paints quite a good picture of this legislation, which goes right up the middle between these perspectives: one, that nothing should happen, and the second, that it should be a libertarian, private sector–distributed and –retailed product.

I feel like I needed to respond to the member’s comments with respect to retail stores, being the minister responsible for liquor retail in the province. There is a reason why a number of municipalities in B.C. are considering only having a government store. It is because government stores have a reputation for safety, for integrity, for checking ID, for ensuring that those who are intoxicated are not served. It is that reputation that encourages municipalities to think, if they are faced with the situation of taking on a retail store following the federal government’s actions, that they would prefer that it be a government store.

The member paints this as being runaway government, out of control, attempting a tax grab. The fact of the matter is that this is a very significant expense for the government. It is a very expensive initiative, generally speaking, that is brought to us by the federal government. I think it’s totally appropriate that we do this responsibly and, if municipalities are in the situation where they want to ensure a responsible operator, that they could have a government store in their community.

With that said, we have a model that allows retail through the private sector as well. If they choose to have private sector sale, they may do that. Each city is quite a different place, just like each member on the other side has a fairly unique perspective on where we should be heading, in terms of the policy here.

I rise simply to say that I have total confidence in the government retail stores ensuring that minimum standards are met, addressing the problem that we’re attempting to address here, which is to prevent organized crime from being involved. There are also safeguards, on the private sector side, to prevent youth from coming into possession of cannabis and to ensure public health and safety and that that information is distributed.

I thought I would just respond briefly about why it was that the government would be looking at government retail as well as private sector retail.

With that, I move second reading of Bill 31.

Motion approved.

Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be referred to committee at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 31, Cannabis Distribution Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

[6:25 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 18 — LOCAL GOVERNMENT STATUTES
(HOUSING NEEDS REPORTS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2018

Bill 18, Local Government Statutes (Housing Needs Reports) Amendment Act, 2018, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.

Hon. S. Simpson moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 10 a.m. tomorrow morning.

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.