Orders of the Day

Hon. S. Robinson: I call committee on Bill 35.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 35; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: The bill before us is about making a temporary increase to the B.C. family benefit, as well as changing the name for what was the child opportunity benefit.

I have two staff here helping me navigate through this committee stage. I have Steve Hawkshaw over here and Matt Krzepkowski just right behind me.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: It’s a pretty straightforward bill. So I’ll just ask a couple of questions of the minister, just more so the public gets a clear sense of what is in store for them with this.

This will take effect for January, February and March of this year. Obviously, that’s the end of the fiscal year, at the end of March.

Can the minister confirm that there’s no application needed, that this is just strictly an increase of up to $58.33 a month for people that already qualify and that it will just be a seamless increase, if they qualify, based on their incomes currently?

Hon. S. Robinson: Because we know that families are struggling, we wanted to keep this as simple as possible. The member is correct. There’s no additional requirement on behalf of families. They will receive this automatically.

P. Milobar: My understanding is that there has been no change to the income thresholds that would qualify you, but because of the increase to the overall calculation, there may be some people that currently weren’t qualifying that may see just a few dollars added to the payment that they maybe currently don’t qualify for. Is that accurate, or is it that if you haven’t qualified for a dollar at this point, you don’t qualify for a dollar moving forward?

Hon. S. Robinson: The member is correct. That is correct.

P. Milobar: Sorry. Which was correct? I kind of had the two options in that one question.

Hon. S. Robinson: It was the first one. I was nodding as he was speaking, so that’s where my head went. So some additional folks may qualify.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, the payment will commence or start to be in motion as soon as there’s royal assent on this bill, and the actual naming of it won’t change, though, till January 1, when that payment gets sent out. Correct?

Hon. S. Robinson: Yes, that’s correct.

Clause 3 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. S. Robinson: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — INCOME TAX
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Bill 35, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We call committee of the whole, Bill 31, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — B.C. PAVILION
CORPORATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 31; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:18 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will take a short recess while we wait for the minister and staff.

The committee recessed from 1:18 p.m. to 1:27 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We are dealing with Bill 31, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act. Would the minister like to introduce his staff?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much. Because of this incredibly efficient Legislature that we have, we have staff who are on their way from the ministry’s offices. I’m joined by James McNish, who works in our office, and there will be some others who will be making their way here, and maybe even some on an earpiece to help us along if there are very specific questions with regards to Bill 31.

On clause 1.

D. Ashton: Minister, it’s always good to see you.

Minister, in your first reading of the bill, you had stated that the purpose of this bill is to streamline the legislation by eliminating redundant statutes related to the British Columbia Enterprise Corp., an entity which has not carried out business for over 30 years. I would just ask: why has this legislation been so long in coming to be tabled over this period of time that the entity has not been functional?

Hon. N. Cullen: Nice to see my friend as well. I’m so glad that the first question he asked is one that I can’t fully answer. The Enterprise Corp. has not conducted business in three decades. It might be a question of our government and previous governments and previous governments before that as to why it continued on in this form, but it has. It didn’t prevent, from my knowledge, PavCo from doing any of its essential business on behalf of British Columbians in terms of the two sites that remain active after Expo 86. Yet this is a bit of legislative housekeeping.

The Enterprise Corp. is somewhat…. I don’t know about misnamed, but just not active. All the assets and liabilities, as we talked about at second reading, are transferring over to the proper way and the authorities. We will have a Pavilions Act in its place for, clearly, the two buildings that are left, and it will be able to operate in the way that it’s meant to.

But as to why it took this long, I suppose it could be any one of a number of reasons. I won’t speculate too far — but a few decades before my time and before our time here together.

[1:30 p.m.]

D. Ashton: So may I ask…. You’re bringing it forward now just to clean it up. Is that correct? How was that brought forward to your attention for this to transpire?

Hon. N. Cullen: We’re having some friends from Municipal Affairs join us.

It was brought to my attention, not that long ago, as a potential and necessary thing to do. We are, of course, quite busy at Municipal Affairs, as many of our colleagues were attending UBCM and some other things. We just recently had, of course, municipal elections, and those — for the large part, I think — went well. We might have a couple recounts and a few tosses of the coin. So we’re quite preoccupied with the many things that we are engaged with on all those fronts.

But this was moving through the legislative calendar. It was something we wanted to bring forward. I’m quite pleased, by the way. It is moving expeditiously through the Legislature because, I think — it’s my opinion, and I think it’s shared by many other members — there’s not a lot of contention within this bill. It is simply that housekeeping procedure that we needed to do.

D. Ashton: Staff in the room, now.

To the minister, thank you for the briefing that was given. It’s always greatly appreciated.

I find myself, literally, in the same boat as the minister, because I’ve gone back to previous ministers of Municipal Affairs and asked about this and there’s a lot of head-scratching that was going on — going: “God, I think I remember, but I’m not positive.” What was the original purpose of the British Columbia Enterprise Corp.?

Hon. N. Cullen: Just to update our support here. I’m joined by Lynn Tang, who’s from Municipal Affairs — has probably forgotten more about this than I’ll ever know — and will be assisting us this afternoon in some of the conversations back-and-forth.

With respect to the origins of this…. Again, this harkens back to Expo 86 in British Columbia and Vancouver hosting the world. Some dozen numbers of countries were here to have an exposition on communications and new technology that would probably not look so new now. I haven’t looked back through the exhibits, historically, but in ’86 it was quite exciting.

More importantly than just the exhibits themselves, I think, for many people living in the Lower Mainland, this was one of the first international highlighted moments for the city and more broadly, I think, for our province. It brought attention that Vancouver had not previously enjoyed. We certainly saw the interest in moving to Vancouver and coming to B.C. after a very successful Expo.

So in that, the B.C. Enterprise Corporation Act, which was created at the time, was established to allow the business of creating these two particular welcome centres and the ability for it to have and contain the indemnification and the liabilities. When Expo was over — and that’s, again, some few years after; I believe 1989 is when the switch came across — there was no longer really a need for the B.C. Enterprise Corp. to do any business. So with the liabilities being transferred over after Expo 86 and after 1989, those assets and liabilities were transferred properly to the province and as Crown corps.

We’ve been working on what’s commonly known as PavCo — that’s what everyone refers to it as. It operates B.C. Place and the pavilion, and that has been working quite well with government support over the years and strong support from the community as well.

It was a structure. It enabled something to happen which was really important. That structure then was really no longer needed. The pavilions were hived off — the ones that needed to be — and have been operating successfully since. And the Enterprise Corp. has just not had any operations for those 30 years since.

Again, as to why we didn’t alter the legislation — as we’re doing here today, hopefully — that’s lost, maybe, to the fog of history at this point.

D. Ashton: As a child, I remember my dad taking me down to the world’s fair in Seattle. That was in the early, early ’60s, and it made a mark on my life — you know, seeing what can be done, as a young child visiting a new community, a new city. Expo 86 did the same thing, where British Columbia opened its arms and welcomed the world. And yes, it did make a big difference for B.C. in the world.

Is there any impact that the minister or staff can think of that will affect the B.C. Pavilion Corp. board with this deletion of the B.C. Enterprise? Is there any cause and effect of the deletion of this on PavCo?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: The short answer is there will be no effect on PavCo. It’ll be able to continue to operate. I was just checking in because there are some small administrative savings, but I don’t think there of any great significance in the streamlining of this process. But PavCo will be able to do what it does for Vancouver and British Columbia, and that’s a good thing — and in a much more direct way.

D. Ashton: Would there be any effect on the B.C. Pavi­lion corporate board with this amalgamation of B.C. Enterprises?

Hon. N. Cullen: We maybe just had a slight hard time hearing the question. Specifically, which board was the member referring to? I know questions are supposed to go one way, but just to clarify it so we can answer it properly.

D. Ashton: I apologize. Sometimes I do talk a bit soft.

Is there going to be any effect on the B.C. Pavilion Corp. board with this amalgamation?

Hon. N. Cullen: No. No effect on the board whatsoever with PavCo.

D. Ashton: Further to that, will this act have any effect on the financial situation of the B.C. Pavilion Corp.?

Hon. N. Cullen: Similar to the question before, no. Not at all on the financial aspects of PavCo and its ability to do its operations.

D. Ashton: Will it provide any new flexibility to government to deal with the fiscal situation at PavCo or anything?

Hon. N. Cullen: No. No impacts whatsoever in terms of the province’s ability to support or assist PavCo.

D. Ashton: Government, I noticed, provided $30.16 million in 2020 and 2021, and $26.034 million in fiscal 2021-22 to the B.C. Pavilion Corp. to assist it with the impact of COVID pandemic. Will the B.C. Pavilion Corp. receive any further funding to assist with COVID ’19-20 pandemic impacts?

Hon. N. Cullen: First of all, we were very proud and happy to support the two through PavCo, the convention centre and B.C. Place, as of course many, many businesses were impacted by the global pandemic. One would imagine that a place like a convention centre, particularly, was impacted. The numbers my friend quotes — the government was very supportive. I believe the city of Vancouver was also very happy to receive that support to make sure that these places remain viable when we do open back up and allow people back into have conventions and gather again.

Out of the scope of this bill, I believe, just with respect to what may come in terms of future financing and needs of PavCo…. But, again, the legislation allows the board and the financial authorities that it has and the operations of these two centres to continue on as before. It just cleans up, in legislation in this place, who they are and what legislation guides them.

D. Ashton: Just a couple more. B.C. Pavilion’s corporate financial statements failed to show any surpluses over the next years.

[1:40 p.m.]

There is a mandate letter from Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sports to B.C. Pavilion Corp. In that letter, it’s expected to “continue to explore options for additional revenue streams.” Can the minister or staff provide any details of what options at this point in time might be considered?

Just a quick reinforcement of what the minister said, I come from a community with a convention centre and an events centre. Everybody had to double down during COVID to ensure, number one, the protection of staff and the continued operation, even though people were going around. You have some massive structures that require a lot of attention, both financially and with staffing.

I would like to say, through yourself: “Thank you for doing that.” These are incredibly important structures to the province of British Columbia.

Hon. N. Cullen: I agree very much with the member’s final statement with respect to what support meant, particularly for these large — sometimes very large — buildings in many of our communities. No one knew, at the onset of the global pandemic, how long it would last. But when it did appear to have some sustaining effect and to go beyond a year, 18 months, two years….

To simply have lost those staff and their expertise and to have not kept up the buildings that are our convention centres, gathering places and arenas would have been a huge mistake. The cost of then trying to bring those back online when we were able to open up would have been — I would argue, and I think many others would as well — much, much more. We know it’s much harder and much more expensive to fix a place that has run down than to keep it going in a viable way, even though people aren’t coming in and out, other than staff.

With respect to TAC’s mandate letter, Tourism, Arts and Culture…. I think the questions might be better directed to the minister with respect to the ambitions towards PavCo looking for other and alternative revenue sources.

It’s always a natural and good expectation of government to keep the entrepreneurial and ambitious spirits of our enterprises going, but I think it’s out of the scope of this bill. This bill does what it does, but it does not affect things like seeking further revenues for PavCo and others to be sustainable and more viable into the future.

D. Ashton: In 2019, the government was seeking B.C. Pavilion Corp. to source rights of sponsorship for B.C. Place Stadium, which is operated under PavCo.

Could the minister enlighten us? Was that successful? That was the RFP process.

Hon. N. Cullen: I don’t know the specific answer to that question, but I’d be more than happy to work with the member to follow up with the Ministry of Tourism to find out, on the question of sponsorship and other alternative revenue sources, what the current state of PavCo is and what it might be into the future.

As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I’m not involved in the day-to-day workings of PavCo. I’m simply responsible, legislatively, for how they are structured within our laws, hence us here today with this legislation.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

D. Ashton: Can the minister outline what properties B.C. Pavilion Corp. owns besides B.C. Place and the Vancouver Convention Centre — and also, if the minister has it at his fingertips, the corresponding value of these properties?

Hon. N. Cullen: These are the only two properties that PavCo owns.

I’m not sure if my colleague was asking for the value of any other potential properties they own or values of these two properties. I don’t have that at hand, but I can certainly endeavour to find out — again, probably working with the Minister of Tourism to see what the current valuation of the convention centre and B.C. Place is. I don’t have that in my files right now.

D. Ashton: So the only two buildings that PavCo has, at this point in time, are B.C. Place and the convention centre? There are no other properties that are on the books or anticipated to be moved over to the books, at this point in time, during this transaction of the amalgamation of the B.C. Enterprise unit?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes. What PavCo owns and operates are those two centres, the B.C. convention centre and B.C. Place. That’s it. That’s their full holdings.

D. Ashton: B.C. Pavilion Corp.’s latest service plan indicates a net proceed of $15 million related to a potential land sale as part of the 2024-2025 budget. May I ask which property these proceeds will be coming from?

Hon. N. Cullen: This is falling into the now growing list of a follow-up category, of potential land sales perhaps connected but not pertinent to this bill that’s in front of us. But happy to work with the member again on specific questions around the potential sale of land and what those properties may or may not be.

D. Ashton: It’s just that with this amalgamation and seeing…. I just want to have a look at the entity. This, I really feel, gives us an opportunity to look inside by having staff here, especially with an amalgamation.

The next question is…. If the minister doesn’t have it at his fingertips, he could also let me know. Why is B.C. Pavilion Corp. selling the land, and is the revenue earmarked for something specific?

Hon. N. Cullen: I will only challenge a small term that my friend used about amalgamation. This isn’t really that. What this legislation does is take something that was created for Expo 86 way back in the day…. It was the structure that the government of the day used in terms of the B.C. Enterprise Corp. It stopped functioning, really, after three years, except for these two properties that still, happily, exist today.

All we’re doing is housekeeping legislation to get rid of the old part of the act that had the Enterprise Corp. in it — it hasn’t functioned in 30 years — and, of course, hive off PavCo so that the B.C. convention centre and B.C. Place have the right legislation attached to them so they can continue to do their job. There’s not really an amalgamation going on. It’s simply legislative housekeeping.

To his specific question about how PavCo is doing as a corporate entity…. I’m more than happy to arrange that conversation. I’m sure other members in this place may be curious about many of the questions that he has — the health of the corporation, future plans, all of that. I’m more than happy to arrange that conversation with the Minister of Tourism, Arts and Culture, who is entirely responsible for its function that way. So more than happy to get into how PavCo is doing, what it’s hoping for, for the future.

This legislation isn’t really amalgamating anything. It’s just simply cleaning up old legislation that is three decades past when it ought to have been fixed. But we’re here today.

No harm, no foul. It hasn’t caused any harm that I’m aware of in terms of operating these two big centres in Vancouver. You want your legislation to speak accurately to what the world actually looks like. I know it’s not always the tradition of this place, but we aim to please.

D. Ashton: I thank the minister for that explanation.

It’s just that in my notes…. It dissolves the British Columbia Enterprise Corp., BCEC, and repeals the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act under which B.C. Pavilion Corp. — i.e., PavCo — acts as the agent of government. In that, it transfers from BCEC to the government all the assets and obligations and liabilities to BCEC, which there may be some common naming on the properties, and allows the government to deal with these assets, even though they may be registered in the British Columbia Enterprise Corp.

That allows the powers of PavCo to operate as the sole entity over the assets and liabilities of BCEC, even just in the naming and on the title of, maybe, these properties.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: What’s a little different about this is that it’s not a Crown corp. It’s registered under the Business Corporations Act, PavCo is, but the government owns the single share. So the people of British Columbia, the government of British Columbia, own the assets. When we transfer liabilities over, when we transfer the assets over in the legislative cleanup that we’re doing, nothing has changed that fact.

Of those two properties in Vancouver, which are very valuable…. We’ll find out what the exact value is, but given real estate prices, that’s a hard thing to pin down day to day. It is sitting under the B.C. corporations act, PavCo is. There’s one single share; we own it. That’s how the structure is.

With respect to what will be different the day after, if this bill passes and receives royal assent, it’s just cleaner legislatively in terms of the authorities. But in terms of the ownership and the liabilities, the fact that British Columbians remain the sole proprietor, the sole owner, of this corporation will remain unchanged.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

D. Ashton: The British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act is the responsibility of Municipal Affairs, as the minister has stated, with the exception of the act as it relates to the B.C. Pavilion Corp., which is the responsibility of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. For clarity, can the minister tell us which minister will be responsible for this new act, as this clause makes reference to “the minister”?

Hon. N. Cullen: Typically in legislation like this, we actually don’t name the minister coming out, in terms of responsibility. That’s set by a number of other statutes.

To my friend’s question, though, of who’s going to be responsible for this in the end, it’s very likely to be the Minister of Tourism. From my perspective as Minister of Municipal Affairs…. While it does have, of course, lots of municipal implications, from my perspective, in my opinion — we’ll see how this statutes act comes out in the end — it just makes a lot more sense for the Minister of Tourism to be responsible for PavCo. That’s where the conversations go back and forth. Clearly, the convention centre and whatnot are very much integrated into our tourism planning and what we hope to do in terms of bringing in visitors.

Again, in legislation like this, we don’t often name the actual minister who’ll be responsible, but it’s a good guess it probably won’t be me.

D. Ashton: I was just quoting. It said “the minister,” so that was my question.

The minister explained that there is one shareholder and one shareholder only for PavCo, but with BCEC coming in, is there still only one share? And who owns that share? And will that share be struck, as the company, from the records totally at this joining — not amalgamation — of the company or the striking from the records of the entire entity of the company of BCEC?

Hon. N. Cullen: I probably misspoke a little earlier. I know we’re not supposed to say that in this place, but it happens. There’s a sole shareholder. That’s us. That’s the people of British Columbia, as represented by the province of B.C. In cleaning this up legislatively…. In terms of how many shares there are, it’s somewhat irrelevant. We’ll find out, though, exactly the number of shares. It depends on the structure that was put in place 35 years ago or more.

But in terms of all the shares that are contained, they are solely owned by the province of British Columbia. If there are any BCEC shares, this original corporation, those are extinguished, so there are no shares to concern ourselves with. If it’s one or if it’s ten, the province of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia, ultimately own them all.

I misspoke earlier about there being a single share. There’s a single shareholder. That’s us.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

[1:55 p.m.]

D. Ashton: That’s what’s so wonderful about committee stage. We get to ask those questions. And to see that…. My hat’s off to the minister. I know this is coming at him, and it’s an entity that predates most of us around here. To have that opportunity to ask these questions, especially with staff in the room, is greatly appreciated.

Could the minister outline what rights, property and assets BCEC corporation has and the value of that? Now, the value may come back again if they don’t have that — I fully understand it — but as of the date that the shares are going to be extinguished or right there before. Is BCEC on the Pavilion? Is BCEC on the tourism centre? That’s at this point in time.

Hon. N. Cullen: To the best of our knowledge, BCEC doesn’t actually own any other assets or properties or liabilities. The reason this is included in the act is just in case they are in possession of something that, again, has been lost over the last 30, 35 years in terms of the government records and accounts. It immediately transfers over to the government as well. We didn’t want any properties that somebody forgot to list in the proper way to BCEC suddenly to become known and then have a corporation that doesn’t exist and properties or some assets or liabilities attached to a now non-existent corporation.

Just for clarity’s sake, we allow PavCo to go on in the new act. BCEC no longer exists. We don’t believe they have any assets. If they do — if one is found through some sort of legal process — it’s simply deemed part of the ownership of British Columbia through the government.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

D. Ashton: On the assets on the other side, are there any obligations and/or liabilities that the minister or staff know that BCEC may have at the point of extinguishment?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, no. We don’t believe BCEC has any of those obligations or assets or liabilities — that we’re aware of.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

D. Ashton: The minister may have answered this. He has explained that if there are any shares outstanding, they will be owned, with the passing of this bill, by the people of British Columbia, i.e., the government. Does the minister know what type of shares were issued with BCEC and how many shares were actually issued?

Hon. N. Cullen: To the question: no, we don’t know. To the foundation of it, though, those shares are cancelled if they do exist. If there were one or 20 or 200, once this enactment takes place, they are eliminated.

You don’t want to have extra little bits hanging around in terms of assets or liabilities that can later be questioned in any kind of property arrangement. That’s why we wanted to make this perfectly clear and clean — that the convention centre, and PavCo writ large, will be an entity unto itself. Any vestiges left over from BCEC…. Simply, assets will be transferred, and shares are eliminated.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

D. Ashton: Section 4(3) of the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act states: “The Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act do not apply to the company….”

Does the minister or staff know what the purpose of this provision was?

[2:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I’m wondering if my friend might be able to clarify. I think we’re on section 9, and I’m trying to see where in section 9 he might be reading that. I’m reading this section in a different way, just in terms of the repealing of the BCEC Act itself. If my friend can clarify…. I’m not doubting his word at all, but I’m just not reading that in terms of this section of the act.

D. Ashton: Sorry. In my notes, I have that under section 4(3). I may have copied…. Under clause 9, 4(3). My mistake, possibly.

I was just asking — could the minister answer it? — if the BCEC has any purpose with those two acts, the Public Service Labour Relations Act and the Public Service Act, in that provision? I apologize for my numbers, and I couldn’t see it quickly. Could staff comment on that to possibly give me an answer under the wrong numbers, as of my fault, under BCEC’s corporate act?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, I’m looking through section 9, and I don’t see that. The section 9 I see is a repeal section — the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act, RSBC, 1996. Section 35 is repealed. They don’t have any employees. They don’t have staff. Just in terms of some of the specifics my friend might be concerning himself with, with regards to what’s changing, it doesn’t actually affect any people.

My suspicion in this is that, again, this is the clause-by-clause elimination of the B.C. Enterprise Corp. out of existence, and you’ve got to take each piece out and eliminate it by text. But that is a bit of a guess. But I’m more than happy to follow up with my friend — and hopefully we’ll be able to do it today — just with respect any concerns that he might have about the way he’s reading that section.

D. Ashton: I do apologize if this number is off, but BCEC had an article that allowed it to expropriate lands without the consent of the owner in the area of False Creek, which was the Expo lands, as we refer to them. Could the minister or staff…? Again, I might be challenging them a little bit because of the timing of this being so many years ago. What was the purpose of the provision, or was there any other purpose of the provision, other than acquiring land for Expo?

Hon. N. Cullen: My friend is definitely challenging my PavCo history, which was not extensive to start with. But through the briefings that I’ve been given with respect to this act that we’re changing, the original prescripts in terms of land expropriation may well have been in the efforts to build pretty substantial structures in the middle of Vancouver. In terms of transferring over to the new entity under the PavCo Act, what my friend sees in the new legislation is exactly what powers they have. It would not extend into areas of the right and powers to land expropriate.

But I’m more than happy to follow up. I think this is interesting. I feel like going and visiting PavCo, those offices, and finding out exactly…. Perhaps the hon. Speaker might have some memories of expropriations that took place when he was a child in Vancouver. Perhaps not. He would have been a very engaged young citizen if he does know about it.

But I don’t want to make too light of this. The housecleaning of this act is simply to do that. All the statutes, articles, powers and liabilities that move over to PavCo, again, as B.C., the only, sole shareholder…. That’s exactly what we’re looking to do.

[2:05 p.m.]

But if I find any information in our conversation this afternoon that will put a little bit more light on this, I’ll be happy to share it with my friend in the House.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Also included in that was the loan privatization section. Does the minister know if BCEC has any outstanding liabilities or any loans outstanding in conjunction with PavCo on the properties that have been mentioned in the amalgamation?

Hon. N. Cullen: As far as we know, no. No outstanding loans or liabilities.

D. Ashton: It was mentioned by the minister and by staff — the intention to streamline the province’s current legislation by eliminating the redundancy of this. Can the minister tell me, or would he know of, how much time has been spent with BCEC on administrative costs, on staff costs? Would he have any idea?

I don’t want to push my luck on going back 30 years, but over the entity, how much is BCEC costing the people of British Columbia at this point in time, per annum?

Hon. N. Cullen: My understanding is that there’s, again, no staff associated to BCEC. There is an annual report that has to be filed. An assistant deputy minister must sign corporate documents on behalf of the minister. The Office of the Auditor General performs an annual financial audit of BCEC, but one would imagine that would not be a very expensive exercise, as they do not operate and have not operated for the last 30 years.

My understanding of this, coming from the administration, from the civil service side of things, is that there’s an ADM who’s had to go through this process. It’s a once-a-year thing. There’s nothing really to report, simply because there’s not been any activity for more than 30 years. Again, I mentioned this a little bit earlier in our conversation that there is not a significant cost savings by what we’re doing here today, simply because we weren’t spending a lot of money or time on it. We’re not expecting some sort of windfall to the treasury in what we’re doing yet. It just is a much cleaner prospect.

Filing annual reports for an entity that doesn’t operate seems silly to me, but it was required because it existed legally. It will no longer, after, if the House chooses to pass this legislation.

D. Ashton: Were those reports generated internally by staff, or were outside auditors required to put their seal on it?

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a very good question. I want to be precise on this, as I was imprecise earlier in the shares question. In order to have maintained the BCEC as a corporate entity over these last three decades here, the following administrative activities that have had to take place…. Again, if we’re able to make PavCo its own entity, it does all its reporting. Of course, it’s audited. It’s a very significant operation, and it will do all those things.

But in terms of the original parent company — if we want to call it that; I think that’s a fair characterization — it had to do four of the following things: maintain BCEC standing with the registrar of companies through Municipal Affairs and Tourism, Arts and Culture; the legal services branch solicitor prepares and files an annual report and prepares annual resolutions and other corporate documents for signing.

[2:10 p.m.]

Again, I haven’t looked at their corporate filings, but one would assume without any activity, there’s a not a lot of those.

Secondly, an assistant deputy minister of Municipal Affairs acts as one of the directors of BCEC. This is the way that it was structured. From time to time, the assistant deputy minister is required to sign corporate documents on behalf of the minister responsible. I’ve only been here a short time in this role. In the last eight months, nothing has come forward from BCEC to me. I could check with my predecessors, as my friend could check with Ministers of Municipal Affairs before. Unlikely they were signing a lot of documents.

Thirdly, to ensure that the corporate requirements for an audit are met, the Office of the Auditor General performs an annual financial audit of BCEC. One would have to go to the Auditor General’s office to ask how exhaustive that is. I don’t mean to make light of it, but again, the Enterprise Corp. hasn’t done anything in 30 years. I’m suspecting the audit is not exactly very expensive or timely, but one never knows with auditors. Sometimes they find interesting things to study and talk about.

Lastly, the Ministry of Finance’s office of the comptroller general maintains BCEC as a listed entity in the government reporting entities. So every year, the comptroller general has to list off all of the entities. It gets listed.

Those are the four things that have to be performed every year, legally, because it’s a corporation. It’s a government corporation. Year in and year out, for the last three decades, probably without the knowledge of 100 percent of British Columbians, except for the few people involved with this, that has been going on. If this legislation passes as we’ve designed it, that will cease to happen.

Again, I wanted to be very cautious and quite specific that there’s not a great deal of savings that we’re expecting back to government by eliminating the BCEC. But it is also a silly thing to do to keep reporting and auditing and doing all the rest for an entity that has not functioned for more than three decades.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

D. Ashton: It’s my understanding that this act will come into force by regulation. I’m just asking the minister if he could give me a time frame for how long he anticipates that, through regulation, this is going to bring us into functionability, where there will be the cancellation and the absorption of the assets, whichever they may be, in the PavCo.

It’s my understanding, again, that this is going to be done by regulation. So do the minister and his staff have a time frame that they can anticipate the finality of BCEC?

Hon. N. Cullen: My friend is correct. This is done by regulation, so it’ll be an order-in-council. One thing that I neglected to mention in our conversation so far, through the second reading, is that PavCo is very much involved with us in this conversation and are supportive of it. I don’t know why I neglected to mention that before.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s important in terms of reassuring people in the tourism sector — people who run hotels, people who run events at the convention centre and B.C. Place — that the people who are in charge of those operations on the day-to-day basis are supportive of the way that this is happening and, I wouldn’t doubt, have probably been asking for this for some time, although it hasn’t hindered their operations.

With respect to how long it would take, we will work with our partners, PavCo, as well as the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture. We want to do this together, do it properly. But in terms of the…. It’ll be done in a timely way, I think it’s very safe to say. But we’re then getting into the dark alchemy of how long it takes to get up into an order-in-council and cabinet operations and all those mysteries, which the Minister of Health knows very, very well. Being relatively new to this place, I’m still mystified, in a Hogwarts sort of sense of things, how things come together with a wish and a wand.

All that to say: bringing it forward in a timely way that will work with PavCo, work with Tourism and, again, not disrupt any of the activities that we have taking place with respect to the two places that will remain under the new act and the pavilions act.

D. Ashton: I just heard the minister say it’s not going to take another 30 years. I think that’s what I heard.

Minister, thank you very much, and a special thanks to your staff. We do have some questions, and I think they’re good questions to have a look at it. I know this has been hanging on the books for a long time.

I would like to thank, again, your staff and you, Minister, for the briefing and for the ability to ask questions on behalf of the people of British Columbia. I look forward to there being a few less entities like BCEC that drive the time frames of those in other levels of government having to look at “shells or empty shells.” Thank you again.

Hon. N. Cullen: To my friend across the way, thank you for the very good questions, not just on the technical aspect of what we’re doing, which, again, I don’t see is at all controversial — just some important housekeeping that was a few decades in the coming — but also the commitment to follow up with respect to PavCo, to work with my colleague the Minister of Tourism and her staff to find the answers to the questions that my friend is looking for.

You talked about expropriation potentials. Does that still exist as a power? Also, the health of PavCo as an entity. How is it doing? What are its prospects?

I think my friend had some other questions. I think they were much more operational, which are fine questions, out of the scope of this particular bill but certainly viable questions for us.

In terms of the expediency, yes, timely is the specific word I’ve been given — not 30 years, not 30 minutes — to get the order-in-council put through.

I very much echo his sentiments — Lynn Tang for helping me out in sorting through some of the history of this, which predates many of us here to a significant extent. But it’s an interesting part of B.C.’s history and Vancouver’s history, specifically the government of the day setting up an enterprise corporation, creating what is now a government corporation, through PavCo, in order to facilitate the building and operation and running of these two very important facilities, which made Expo 86 a success and has led to Vancouver being placed on the world map in terms of being a place where people were interested in and wanting to come and all the successes that have come from that for our great city and our province.

Clause 10 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. N. Cullen: Mr. Chair, thank you for confirming that the title did pass with, I hope, unanimous support.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2:20 p.m.]

Report and
Third Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — B.C. PAVILION
CORPORATION ACT

Bill 31, B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.

Hon. S. Malcolmson: We call second reading of Bill 34.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND
HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY
AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

Hon. A. Dix: I move that Bill 34 be now read a second time.

The Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was enacted in 2018 in this Legislature to assist government in pursuing recovery of health care costs incurred as a consequence of the ongoing crisis involving the use of opioids in our province since 2017. And you’ll hear significantly more from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions on this question.

The government has accelerated its response to the ongoing public health emergency by investing more than $1 billion in additional funding to expand existing services and add new resources across the full spectrum of mental health and substance use care. In fact, if you look across the health care system, the two largest areas of increase in the budgets of health care and health care organizations are, one, for mental health and addictions care and, two, for the B.C. emergency health services and the Ambulance Service. And a significant amount of impact on their costs has been the impact of the overdose public health emergency, as well as its impact, obviously, on health care workers across the province.

The crisis, to say the least, has not abated. As we said at the time, we know the costs will continue to increase — the human costs, which are incalculable, and the costs to the community, to families, and, of course, ultimately to the government. Very unfortunately, the crisis is not reaching an end and continues to have a devastating impact on our communities and on our health care system. As the province funds health care for our residents, it bears the cost of providing care to those who have to be treated for problematic substance use and addiction.

I’m just going to summarize our argument here in the bill and then get into some of the details of this question in my remarks. These costs include the provision of emergency health services by paramedics and our ambulance service, a very significant response to overdose events; the cost of hospital treatment; the costs associated with mental health and addiction services; and all kinds of related costs.

These measures, as I say, of health care costs do not and cannot account for the immeasurable personal losses. They also do not begin to account for the direct financial costs to the individuals who are directly impacted by the opioid crisis or to their family members and friends and society as a whole that are related to this ongoing crisis. There’s not, I think, a member of this House who does not know a family, has not been in touch with a family, who has not been touched by the impact of the overdose public health emergency.

These costs are, to say the least, incalculable. It was in part for this reason, as one element and only one element of our response, that the Attorney General at the time, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, the incoming Premier, together with the Hon. Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, the member for New Westminster at the time, Judy Darcy, whom members of this House will know, led the country in stepping up to commit to holding the parties who are responsible for the opioid crisis accountable for their actions. That’s what they did in 2018, and that’s what we did, first in court and then as a legislature, to ensure and to enable that court case. I’m going to speak about some of those things in a little while.

[2:25 p.m.]

On August 29, 2018, the Attorney General and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions jointly announced that as one part of the government’s response, and only one part, to fight the overdose epidemic in B.C., a public health emergency, government had commenced a proposed class action against more than 40 different manufacturers and distributors of brand-named and generic opioid products in Canada.

What’s happened, of course, since then is that other jurisdictions have joined us in this effort. The lawsuit was launched, and since then, I am encouraged to see that Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have enacted similar statutes. In fact, a number of those jurisdictions are enacting amendment statutes parallel to the ones that we’re doing today.

The prospect of the success of the action, as people will know, in the circumstances is significantly impacted by provinces united in pursuing recovery from defendants. Canadian jurisdictions are following, in this sense, what has happened in U.S. jurisdictions where similar actions have taken place both against companies in this area and other lawsuits related to tobacco, and they have managed to secure settlement by consolidating their causes of action. By uniting together rather than launching a large number of distinct actions, it’s more likely for a defendant to agree to a single settlement with all plaintiffs. This is hugely advantageous.

While there were questions, including questions by the opposition at the time, around the launching of this action, the coming together of provinces in this effort…. This has happened subsequently, and we’ll talk about the tobacco litigation, which forms sort of a parallel basis for the kinds of actions we’re taking today, where initially there was some public controversy about the initial legislation. There were issues around it. The legislation that was in place passed in 2000. The Liberal government that took over subsequently continued to pursue those actions. In fact, it was a Liberal government that was in power when that legislation was sustained in the courts.

So I think that what we have in Canada on this question is a coming together that was led initially by the former Attorney General, the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and the former member for New Westminster, Judy Darcy. That action now has been sustained and is being pursued by other jurisdictions, and I think that that is a very positive thing.

Now, the action alleges that the pharmaceutical manufacturers and distributors who promoted and sold opioid products caused a spike in addiction rates through various means, including by intentionally marketing their products in a way designed to increase demand while fully knowing the products’ addictive and harmful nature. That action, of course, seeks to recover health care costs incurred as a consequence of those companies’ actions to market, promote and sell opioid products as pharmaceuticals that were less addictive, less subject to abuse and diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other kinds of pain medications.

The legal action commenced in 2018 and has continued to progress. As I noted, other Canadian jurisdictions have joined British Columbia, and we’ll be talking about jurisdictions joining us in this action as we further discuss this bill to hold opioid manufacturers and distributors to account.

Following in the steps of our government, as I said, other governments have joined us, and it is our hope that with the passage of this legislation, we’ll see the government of Canada do so as well, further strengthening the action in the courts.

I’m pleased to say that the existing act has been successful in allowing governments to move forward with the case, being led, of course, by the outstanding counsel of the Ministry of Attorney General.

Earlier this year government announced that it had reached a settlement with Purdue Pharma. Canada, the provincial and territorial governments have agreed to a total of $150 million in monetary benefits, plus additional benefits, including access to information and documents from Purdue Pharma that are relevant to the lawsuit.

This settlement is the largest one of its kind by government in Canadian history. Although it has not yet been approved in the courts, it is a sign of success. We nevertheless acknowledge that it represents but a fraction of the true expense of damages associated with the overdose crisis.

The proposed settlement represents a significant step forward in holding companies such as Purdue Pharma accountable for their actions. We know that the settlement will not make up in almost any way for the loss of loved ones over the last many years. But it is still a significant step, one that follows similar steps in the United States and seems to me is an act of justice that we must continue to pursue. Of course, Purdue Pharma is but one defendant in the case.

[2:30 p.m.]

At this time, what we’re proposing to do…. I’ll get into some of the principles behind the details of the legislation. As members will know, this is an amendment act, so we want to focus on those details. Then, obviously, we’ll have a further opportunity for an exchange at committee stage. But I want to talk specifically and sort of lay out where these changes are and then get back to, as well, the purpose of the legislation.

Since 2018, the province has continued to add defendants who meet the definitions of “manufacturer” or “wholesaler,” but as the litigation has progressed, legal counsel have identified other potential defendants who are not captured by those definitions, despite their alleged contribution to an “opioid-related wrong,” as defined in the original legislation, the 2018 legislation.

It’s the desire to make certain that the definition of the term “manufacturer” captures manufacturers of the active ingredients necessary to produce opioid products. This is intended to eliminate a risk that a court could conclude that the different definition does not capture. Those are part of the changes. It’s important, if you are putting forward a lawsuit, to ensure that all of the potential defendants who have responsibility are captured by the lawsuit. That is the purpose of that first set of amendments.

Additionally, it’s proposed to amend the act to add a direct cause of action against a “consultant” and define that term to allow pursuing recovery from parties who acted as consultants, in this case, to manufacturers or wholesalers and provided strategic advice on the marketing and sales of opioid products. Those consultants who have provided consulting and strategic services and advice to opioid manufacturers and wholesalers on the marketing and sales of opioid products should be held accountable for their actions as much as manufacturers and wholesalers are.

It is proposed also to add to the act a provision that’s found in some other provinces’ statutes to provide for joint and several liability of individual directors and officers of the corporate entities that are defendants. Currently the act does not provide for joint and several liability of directors and officers. We do not want British Columbia to be in a different position than other jurisdictions in this respect, and directors and officers of these defendant corporate entities should be accountable, as well, for any role they had in their companies’ actions.

It is proposed also to clarify the formula for calculating the market shares of defendants to allow for accounting of the separate and distinct impacts of the manufacturing of opioid products and the distribution or wholesaling of opioid products. This will ensure that liability may be apportioned appropriately between both manufacturers and wholesalers against whom a claim is proven.

Finally — I referred to this earlier — it’s proposed to expressly include a right of action by the federal government within the act to enable the Canadian government to recover from private parties the health care–related expenditures that have been made in British Columbia. This parallels actions that are taking place in other jurisdictions and comes, certainly, at the request of the federal government.

As we know, the federal government funds health care in the provinces and territories via transfer payments. It is our government’s perspective that the federal government should be able to pursue recovery from opioid manufacturers and wholesalers, as provincial and territorial governments are. It is proposed to add a new provision mirroring the current section 2 of the act, which applies to the province, to reference the government of Canada specifically.

The proposed class action, hon. Speaker, as you know, is expected to be certified in 2023. Strengthening the act, as we propose to do through this bill, will serve to extend the procedural advantages included within it to the action in progress. This will serve the interests of the people of B.C., who have been impacted in profound ways by the opioid crisis, and it will allow recovery of some of the vast costs that we have incurred to provide health care to those who have suffered from opioid addiction.

Our government remains, of course, steadfast to ending this public health emergency with historic investments — which we’ll get into in a second. We’re building a comprehensive and seamless continuum of mental health and addictions care, a system that includes early intervention, harm reduction measures, treatment and recovery.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are treating substance use and addictions as a health care issue, rather than a criminal justice one, by being the first in Canada to act on decriminalization. We’re standing up for supports in an unprecedented way, but we are also facing a rising tide of need. I want to say that the legislation that we passed in 2018 has a place in history in B.C., and it really builds on the work that this Legislature has done and that subsequent governments have done, with respect to the litigation around tobacco.

People will remember that in 1998, British Columbia became the first jurisdiction in Canada and the Commonwealth to launch a lawsuit for the recovery of those tobacco-related health care costs that were incurred by the government of B.C. as a result of the past wrongful conduct of the tobacco industry, including what is objectively clear, I think: the deceptive promotion of their product. That lawsuit made a series of assertions about tobacco manufacturers in that case.

What is interesting and important — what makes the work of the Legislature, even the work in debate, very important — is that the action was authorized, originally, by an act called the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 1998. It was launched and supported to provide the basis for that suit. The defendant manufacturer successfully challenged the constitutionality of that act, and a new act was introduced in 2000, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. On January 24, 2001, the province relaunched its action against the tobacco industry.

It’s important to note, when we make changes like that, their potential significance. We know that, of course, there was a change in government, the member for Abbotsford West might remember, in 2001. This has been an action that was justified and certainly maintained, subsequently, by the previous government, including in his time as Attorney General.

In September 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld the province’s right to sue the tobacco industry and concluded that that act, the act passed in 2001, was constitutional. In March 2012, British Columbia announced that it had partnered with five other Canadian provinces to retain a national legal consortium to prosecute health care claims against the Canadian manufacturers and their foreign affiliates.

It’s this basis of action about tobacco-related illnesses and disease that forms, shall we say, the intellectual basis and the public policy basis for the action and the appropriate action taken and commenced against opioid manufacturers. It’s similar to that action — which was launched in 1997, relaunched in 2000 and affirmed by the Supreme Court in 2005 — in that it seeks to make large corporate entities accountable for the devastating effects of their harmful products.

There are several elements of that that are, I think, important. Of course, subsequent amendments to the bill strengthen the government’s ability — in that case, as in this case today — to seek accountability. That legislation established a statutory tort, the tobacco-related wrong. That act was novel in establishing that statistical or epidemiological evidence could be introduced to establish damages. It also established provisions whereby liability could be based on risk contribution. You see some of those elements laid out in this legislation today.

The original tobacco legislation was amended and strengthened to shift the burden of proof in relation to certain aspects of causation, by requiring tobacco companies to prove that any breach of duty on their part did not contribute to exposure to tobacco products and tobacco-related disease. That was appropriate when the industry continued to maintain that nicotine is not addictive, that smoking was a matter of free choice and that they did not use deceptive practices to encourage people to smoke. This, of course, was significantly and repeatedly tested in the courts. As noted, the Supreme Court of Canada supported this. This provided, of course, the basis for what we see in this legislation today.

[2:40 p.m.]

I think it’s important, then, to reflect, as we move forward, on the bill that we passed in 2018 and the reasons why we’re making some changes and some additions through amendments today. I just want to briefly go through the specific amendments, talk about their objectives and the rationale for them, and then we’ll have further discussion of these objectives and this rationale as we go forward in committee stage.

If you look at those changes that we’re seeing, and there is not a significant number of them, they all have a specific rationale. The objective of the changes on the definition of manufacturer, and this is the issue of ingredients that I spoke to earlier, is to ensure that the act may be employed to pursue recovery from manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients in addition to manufacturers of drugs included in the schedule. It is desired to amend the definition of manufacturer to specifically include manufacturers of “active pharmaceutical ingredients” contained in an opioid product.

Currently, in our view, the definition does not clearly capture manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients, which are essential ingredients in the production of opioids, within its scope. It has been established that some manufacturers of opioid products and manufacturers of these ingredients played a key role in the manufacture and sale of opioid products. By including these persons within the scope of the definition, there is less risk the courts will conclude that it does not apply, for reasons of definition, to manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients as distinct from manufacturers of opioid products, which are, of course, defined in the current act.

Those are the first set of changes that have been put forward, and we’ll be discussing the detail of that. I know the members will have questions about that as we move forward to committee stage.

The second sets of amendments have the objective of expanding the right of action to permit recovery from a consultant to be defined as “a person in the course of providing services to a manufacturer or wholesaler who assists the manufacturer or wholesaler in designing, recommending and implementing strategies to increase sales of opioid products in addition to defined manufacturers and wholesalers.”

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Companies that served as consultants who advise manufacturers or wholesalers of opioid products may not readily be found to fall within the definition of manufacturer and wholesaler. As written, the act does not allow British Columbia to pursue consultants, including companies that are known to have advised named defendants on the marketing of opioid products that amounted to opioid-related wrongs as defined in the act, resulting in the province incurring costs of health care benefits.

Establishing a direct cause of action against the consultant would serve to strengthen the prospect of legal recovery from companies that advise manufacturers and wholesalers on the marketing of opioid products and enhance the province’s position in negotiating for recovery. I would say that this again makes sense. It expands and ensures that those who need to be accountable be held accountable.

We’ll be going through the details of this in committee stage, but the purpose of that, again, is to ensure that those who need to be held accountable — and indeed are accountable — for these actions are held accountable in the courts. That’s the purpose, of course, of the action, but it’s the purpose of the change in legislation today.

Thirdly, the legislation deals with the joint and several liability of directors and officers. This is, as noted, available in other jurisdictions, but not in British Columbia. We want to make sure of that joint and several liability of the defendant companies, whether they’re manufacturers or wholesalers. It is, I think desired and desirable to hold individuals employed by or affiliated with corporate defendants jointly and severally liable so that responsibility is shared by all involved and recovery of damages may be obtained from any of the parties.

This may serve to increase, of course, the prospect of recovery by ensuring that, again, those who are accountable are held accountable. Such a provision is found in the analogous legislation of other Canadian jurisdictions, Ontario and Alberta.

As noted at the beginning, this action was started by the Attorney General, the former Minister of Mental Health and Addiction of this government and has been picked up by multiple other governments across the country. We want to ensure that that same responsibility that is in the Ontario and the Alberta legislation is found here.

[2:45 p.m.]

Next, there is a very important issue of the market share calculations, which is an important part of the legislation that was brought forward. You’ll find that established in section 1(6) of the existing act, the current act, before this amendment. It’s for the purpose of the court determining the market share of a defendant for type of opioid products sold in British Columbia.

It does not account for the separate markets for the manufacturer of opioid products and for the distribution of opioid products. It’s desired to amend the formula to reflect that there are different markets for the manufacturer of opioid products, for which liability is imposed on defendants who are manufacturers, and the distribution of opioid products, for which liability is to be imposed on defendants who are wholesalers. Should they be involved, consultants would potentially become jointly and severally liable for the share of liability of the manufacturer or wholesaler that they consulted.

That’s the rationale. Of course, that’s the objective here, and the rationale is that amending the formula to reflect the difference between manufacturer and wholesaler defendants will permit the court to more accurately calculate a particular defendant’s market share for a particular opioid product, thereby enabling a just apportionment of liability.

That set of issues, again, we’ll have the opportunity to discuss at committee stage, but it forms the fundamental basis of this, which is to ensure that the action that takes place, should they be held accountable by the courts, that people are able to be held accountable.

What’s the next and final main provision of the bill, as I discussed before, is the application to the federal government. The intent here is to extend the application of the term “government” as used within the act to apply the government of Canada in addition to the government of British Columbia. This is to make explicit, and the view and the rationale for this, which again…. Allowing the participation of the government of Canada both strengthens the action and, also, brings all the parties to the table. It’s not a requirement, necessarily, for the government of Canada to pursue its own case in the court should they be allowed to participate in our own.

The government of Canada has asked British Columbia to include it within the meaning of the term “government” within the act, as it is unable to enact legislation creating liability for the totality of the expenditures on health care. Provinces, of course, have exclusive constitutional jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

If the legislation does not include the federal government and B.C. does not include Canada within its scope of action, there’s a risk that a judge certifying the class action will only certify class members who have similar legislation, thereby excluding Canada from the prospects of recovery. Including Canada, I think, within the scope of the act strengthens the action and also is desirable, in my view anyway, for all parties to the action.

That is the rationale, the objective and the rationale of the different sections of the bill. I think, if you look at all of those, they are consistent with both the purpose of the original legislation and the overall purpose of the act.

What I would say: there is profound history. I think that we are all…. Because so many people in British Columbia have been personally affected by the impact of the overdose public health emergency, because so many people in our broader community and other jurisdictions, as well, have been so affected, so many people in the United States have been so affected, it’s important, I think, to remember the profound impact of some of the actions of some companies on people and the actions that have been taken in other jurisdictions.

I note, in particular, in one state alone, without going on too extensively about actions that have occurred in the United States, on May 10, 2007, some 15 ½ years ago, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the Western district of Virginia announced that Purdue pharmaceutical, Purdue Pharma, one of the principal companies involved there, was pleading guilty to misleading marketing in the United States. In that one state alone, the Purdue paid $600 million — $600 million — in criminal and civil settlements. Three executives pleaded guilty as individuals to the criminal misbranding and were fined $34.5 million.

[2:50 p.m.]

As part of the plea agreement, a statement of facts was laid forward. I’ll just quote from it briefly. It says that Purdue supervisors and employers, with the intent to defraud or mislead, marketed and promoted OxyContin as “less addictive; less subject to abuse and diversion;” and “less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other pain medications.” They knowingly marketed OxyContin when they knew better. I was looking through some of the ads that have been put forward over the years about OxyContin — ones showing very fit-looking joggers, referring to OxyContin, that said: “One to start and stay with.” Indeed.

I think these actions, consistent with actions taken in the United States and actions taken in jurisdictions across Canada, are actions that we need to continue to pursue, to ensure, by making changes, as we did with tobacco-related jurisdictions that have been pursued by governments of both NDP and Liberal political stripes, to continue to pursue an action that we think will bring some measure of justice but also support for those dealing with the overwhelming impact of the overdose public health emergency here in B.C. and the impact of that emergency, of course, across the country.

I don’t need, I think, to describe in too much detail here the impact of that. There are members of this House who are working on a legislative committee now that are dealing with these very issues, and they are profound. They’ve been the subject of discussion in this House, and enormous action.

I talked about the $1 billion in increased spending that has taken place, but also the losses. In August 2022, those losses were 169 suspected illicit drug toxicity deaths; 169. This was — and it’s impossible to use the term “decrease” in this context — down from 191, which it was in the previous August, August 2021. In other words, profound. There were, from January 1 to July 31, 2022, 13,239 paramedic-attended calls related to the overdose public health emergency.

In 2021, there were a total of 3,409 paramedic-attended drug poisoning events and 343 deaths among Indigenous peoples in B.C. Since 2016, the year in which the public health emergency was declared, we have lost a total of 1,327 First Nations people to toxic drug poisoning. It is why the response by governments then and now have been so systematic and, as well, inadequate to meet the demand of this crisis.

The intent of this is not to take away from any of that action and all the other actions that will continue to be required to deal with the overdose public health emergency by governments and by our communities. A public health emergency requires and demands an extraordinary response, and one is there. This element of it — holding companies responsible for their actions — is what this legislation is about: the opioid damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. These actions only deal with part of that. They do not bring anybody back, and nobody should pretend that they do.

I think — and I believe that other members of the House, I hope, will support us in this — that people do need to be held accountable. That accountability has to be expressed in the ways that can be expressed today, and this is one of them: to ensure that those who were responsible for marketing which was deceptive be held responsible for that deception. Because the impact of that on people in our communities…. I mean everywhere. There’s a tendency to focus on particular areas of our communities and say: “That’s where the problem is.” It is everywhere. There is not a member of this House who doesn’t face this problem in their communities.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think, on behalf of the government; on behalf of my colleague the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions; the Attorney General; the former Attorney General; those people who brought forward this action on the government side; and the people of B.C., that this action and this legislation should be supported in this House as we continue to pursue this action in the courts.

There is much more to be done to end this public health emergency. This legislation builds on the work the government has done to hold manufacturers accountable for the toll their products have taken on our province, our community, our country. But we are still faced with the toxic stream of illicit drugs that is robbing us of so much.

So much potential, so many lives being snuffed out before their time. Every death, every single one, is more than the statistics, so much more than a number on a list. Each death due to an overdose is a tragedy, not just for the family of that person but for the whole community — that person, their family, their community, all of us. It is for our communities and our province.

We’ll never know what people who have died due to the toxic illicit drug supply could have contributed to our society. We don’t know what they would have contributed, but we know it would have been a lot. And this is not acceptable. Collectively, I know we all mourn every life lost to toxic drugs. We will never know what each one of these people could have contributed, as I noted, if they had not lost their lives so early and so prematurely. And the grief felt by people, by communities, about this is profound.

My colleague the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is working hard every day to find ways to end this scourge, as are tens of thousands of others across B.C. She has, of course, the full support of our government to do so. The mandate of my ministry is to support that work of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to improve B.C.’s response to the opioid crisis across the full continuum of care — prevention, harm reduction, safe prescription medications, treatment and recovery. We are committed to doing that every day, as I know members of this House who are working on this issue right now are committed to do.

We have so much more to do, and we intend to do so. This piece of legislation is only one element, but as has happened in other jurisdictions, in communities across North America, in communities across Canada, there is a need, a profound need, a rising tide of need to hold people accountable for their actions, and we should do so.

There is more to do, and we are committed to investing in the services people need, but there is a need here for accountability, a need for accountability that is supported by this legislation, a need for accountability and fairness that is required of all of us, I think. In my view, the steps taken here today to strengthen this legislation, which is legislation that has already had some success….

It’s not yet approved by the court, that success, but an agreement to $150 million in monetary benefits with Purdue Pharma shows that this course of action was an appropriate course of action, that this direction where British Columbia led and other jurisdictions have followed, including some of the provisions of this particular act, which supports the original acts that they brought forward in other jurisdictions, is an example of some actions we can do both to acknowledge the profound effects of this in our community and to hold accountable people and companies that deserve to be held accountable for their actions.

These amendments make that act stronger. They make it clearer. They ensure that those who are to be held accountable are included in the definitions, that the impact and the need to ensure that the participation of all governments in Canada, the federal government as well as provincial governments, is assured, that those people involved in the marketing of products who did not fit in the previous definitions as found in the act are included in those definitions. All of these changes support the original principle of the bill passed by this Legislature and support the principles that are laid out in this legislation. I think it’s important legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s obviously an amendment bill. Subsequently, perhaps later today, probably on Monday, we’ll be talking about a health colleges bill, which is an original act which is far longer and more complex than this one. But I think it’s important.

I look forward to the contributions of my colleagues on the opposition side, both here in second reading and then further at committee stage, so that we can clarify our intent around the legislation. I think that’s important and something I’ve tried to do today, to ensure that the people of B.C., those who have suffered — their families, their communities, this province — have access to the justice that they deserve in our courts for actions that were, to my way of thinking, completely unacceptable and led to consequences for people — our loved ones and the people of B.C. — that need to be responded to in this way.

So I ask all members of this House to support this piece of legislation, Bill 34, at second reading, and that we have — and I know we will — a good debate about these questions and these principles as they fit into the details in our clause-by-clause examination of the legislation.

Thank you, hon. Speaker. I’m proud to move second reading.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the members of the House and the Minister of Health, who has just spoken. It is clearly impossible to overstate the magnitude of the tragedy that the opioid overdose crisis has had on families in this province — loss of life and the cascading impact of that.

The minister has, I think, correctly pointed out that I would be surprised if there’s a single member of the chamber that has not been touched personally by a story, an incredibly tragic story, involving an individual. We deal in this chamber, I suppose by necessity, in many cases, with data and statistics and numbers, because it’s the way we tend to quantify things. But it is, in the case of the loss of life and the magnitude of loss of life that we have been dealing with, really impossible to seize upon a number or any quantifiable instrument to try to summarize what we have been confronted by.

I think we come to this conversation and discussion joined by that understanding and joined by that appreciation. Of course, discussions are taking place elsewhere here at the committee stage. I think all are looking forward to the results of that work. I think all are appreciative of the fact that an opportunity was created for members on all sides of the House to provide input and provide ideas and provide views on how to move forward.

This is also, at times, a very partisan place, and no secret that the opposition, in voicing its dismay about the magnitude of the crisis, has articulated its criticisms and disappointments with what it sees, at times, as a failed strategy on the part of the government. I have to say that I expect some of those criticisms will continue to be pursued, hopefully, I think, in the context of providing alternative suggestions and approaches going forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

That is a feature of this place that some people lament and sometimes are puzzled by. But it is also, as we frequently say, far better than the alternatives that we see in other societies around the world where differences of opinion exist. Happily, in this case, I think we are unified around the achievement of an objective, and that is to reduce, as quickly as possible and as significantly as possible, the numbers of people who are succumbing to the scourge of overdose-related ailments and, in far too many cases, overdose-related deaths from opioids.

This piece of legislation relates to part of an approach. I should say, right off the bat, in responding to the Health Minister’s request, the opposition is going to facilitate passage of this bill into committee stage. I hope there was not too much doubt on the minds of the minister and the government about that. There are a number of reasons for that.

I’ve mentioned the preeminent reason, and that is our desire to work constructively to take steps that will address this tragedy. There’s another principle that has arisen in the course of the remarks already made that does enjoy support from the opposition, and that is the principle that those who have contributed to the misery and the loss and the tragedy associated with this should be held accountable and should be held responsible.

That guided this chamber and guided the opposition just over four years ago, when the original legislation was presented to the House, which, as I recall, enjoyed expedited passage through the House. I think that that was a reflection of the concern that existed on both sides, and a willingness that existed on both sides, to facilitate this notion of judicial intervention, so that litigation could proceed in the context that it has.

For all of that, I want to also say that the opposition sees itself as having a role that it hopes to discharge at the committee stage of the debate to ensure that what we have before us is achieving the objectives that the government has articulated. That it is drafted in a way that is consistent with those objectives.

It is an unusual state of affairs in our society, happily governed by the rule of law, that every now and again — and the minister has referred to the other classic example, relating to cases against tobacco companies — governments go beyond the common law and say: “We are going to create a cause of action. We are going to create a set of rules that enable the pursuit of damages in the context of a set of rules that otherwise would not exist, a statutory right of action.”

That’s what this represents, and that’s what the original legislation in 2018 sought to establish. I should say I had, about 30 minutes ago, the benefit of a briefing from the very able staff who are very much involved in the prosecution of this case. I was reminded that the case — and the minister mentioned this in his remarks — was commenced several months prior to the proclamation of the act itself.

[3:10 p.m.]

That happened in 2018. The following year, an amended notice of claim was filed that very much avails itself of the provisions of the legislation that was passed in 2018 and is, I think one would fairly characterize, a stronger claim for that reason, because it is able to avail itself of the provisions of the act that created that statutory claim.

We are now making changes, and we’ll have a chance to discuss, in committee, the nature of those changes. But we should all be aware, outside of the context of the magnitude of the tragedy we’re dealing with, that that represents an extraordinary measure. A case has been commenced, and the government and this chamber are now purporting to alter, in various ways, some of the rules that will govern that case. And we have an obligation to be cautious and careful and diligent about ensuring the manner in which that is done.

We had a conversation earlier today in this chamber about another matter that is very much in the public mind, and that is public safety. We have heard, over the course of the last number of weeks, in the course of that sometimes very vigorous debate, the impact of unintended consequences when legislation is passed, either in this place or in the senior parliament in Ottawa.

We need, I think, to take seriously our role to ensure that in pursuit of an objective that we all share, in the passage of either the original legislation or — now, more particularly — the amendment to that original legislation, we are not inadvertently having unanticipated or unintended consequences that may not be at the root of what is being pursued.

I’ll touch, in the few moments available to me, on some of the areas that the opposition will want to pursue. I should say candidly to the minister that in the exchange I had with his staff, I tried to be as candid as possible as to the areas where I thought we would want to have a conversation.

This is a claim, a compensatory claim. The minister has correctly pointed out it will do nothing to bring back those who have succumbed to an opioid-related overdose. It also does not provide direct compensation to individual families. It is a claim for compensation by government.

I don’t say that in a critical way. It is just important that people understand that the pursuit of defendants here relates to a claim by government for compensation as it relates to health-related expenses. I think that’s actually the term in the act: “health-related expenses.” That is a defined term.

So when we move into that discussion, the minister should anticipate some questions about the manner in which that will occur — probably some questions about the “success” to date. We have heard about the settlement — he has referred to it — with Purdue. There is a figure that was, I think, widely circulated of $150 million. I am told in the briefing that the distribution of that amount has not been settled.

[3:15 p.m.]

I will ask the minister what that translates into from the point of view of the government of British Columbia. My guess is there is going to be a standard sort of per-capita application formula. I don’t know to what extent there will be legal fees associated. I say that only to make the point that the global figure is out there, but we need to be very forthright with people about how that is translating into compensation to the government of British Columbia in pursuit of these matters.

The minister, in pointing to the legislation, spoke about some of the changes that are being made here. I think there are two that are particularly noteworthy. One is the creation of a new class of defendant, and that is a consultant. I won’t read the act. We’ll have plenty of time to do that in the committee stage. But again, by way of forewarning to the minister, we will want to explore with him just how broadly that net is being cast.

Now, I understand that a defendant, a consultant defendant, has already been added to the action. I’m told that has happened, so when I use the word “McKinsey,” I don’t think I’m…. And if I am, I’ll avail myself of the protections of this chamber. But I’m told that those documents have been — McKinsey or Mackenzie….

An Hon. Member: McKinsey.

M. de Jong: McKinsey — that they have already been added and that they are indicative of the type of consultant defendant that the government intends to pursue.

I’m a little bit concerned that the definition included in the wording of the act may potentially include people that the government may or may not wish to pursue. For example, in the case of a wholesaler defendant, there are a number of pharmacies. Shoppers Drug Mart is a defendant in this action. If you are a salesperson for Shoppers Drug Mart, you are potentially, in the language used, accessible as a defendant.

Maybe the government purposely wishes to preserve that as an option. Maybe they don’t. But exploring with the minister and the government precisely who could potentially be added as a defendant because of the wording and the drafting included in these amendments is, I think, a legitimate exercise of the opposition’s role in this chamber, particularly in the case where the Legislature is creating this statutory cause of action and now changing it midway through the action.

The minister has pointed to, as well, the changes that are being made to the calculation of market share. Some of this gets awfully technical, and when you start seeing formulas incorporated in legislative language, it can be a bit baffling at times, but as I understand it, the distinction being made now as between manufacturers and wholesalers is one that is potentially necessary. The original act simply spoke to defendants, and calculating market share between the manufacturers and wholesalers may well require that distinction. I don’t know if that is true of consultants, but I suppose a consultant would be associated with either a manufacturer or a wholesaler, so that may not be necessary.

The amendments to the act contained in this bill provide for involvement by the federal government. And, again, the minister will hear from his staff that I posed some questions earlier and will in committee stage — precisely what the government of British Columbia’s intention….

[3:20 p.m.]

Health care is a constitutionally provincial responsibility. I understand that the federal government is involved as it relates to the Aboriginal health authority and the provision of health services on reserve and to Aboriginal, Indigenous peoples. That strikes me as a legitimate place for federal involvement or where there might be a legitimate federal claim. The Canadian military would be another.

But there is language in these amendments that suggests something broader than that may be contemplated. So to the extent that the…. Presumably, the language here is the product of conversations between representatives for the provincial government and the federal government and is designed to breathe life into whatever agreements or understandings were achieved between the two. I’ll be interested — and we’ll be interested — to hear from the minister as to what that entails.

Then, additionally, the minister has pointed to the provisions that draw on language from other jurisdictions around joint and several liability for directors and corporate officers. I certainly understand the significance of that. I’m going to ask the minister, if the House decides to afford the government the opportunity that amendment represents, if and how it intends to make use of it. My reading of the language — and the minister may not have had the benefit of speaking with his staff, following my conversation with them — is that it will require the government to name individuals as defendants.

In an earlier conversation, in talking about consultants, the impression I had been left with is that the government’s intent is to address that at the corporate level. This is precisely the opposite. This speaks to naming the individuals. And to be fair, those individuals, under the language employed here, would have the…. The onus would shift to them to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to protect against opioid-related misconduct or were unaware of it all altogether.

Again, I think it is a proper discharge of our responsibility as the opposition to ask the minister and ask the government, at the appropriate time, how it intends to make use of a tool that in the case of Purdue, had that not been a settlement but had that been a judgment, would have imposed $150 million liability on a single individual, jointly and severally, which, again, may be something that the government wishes to do.

It’s interesting, because normally, if we were having this conversation…. I’ve been around this place long enough to know that the response from government would be: “I don’t really want to talk about this at all because it’s before the courts.” But, of course, we are dealing with legislation that directly impacts how and why it is before the courts. So I will try to be responsible and respectful of things that can and cannot be spoken of during the course of litigation.

But I do think the House is entitled to some information about the present status of the litigation that this legislation directly relates to — why it is necessary; has the government, as plaintiff, encountered difficulties in prosecuting the case, in pursuing the claim. I shouldn’t say that — pursuing the claim. It is not a criminal matter; it is the pursuit of a civil claim for damages. And what is motivating the changes to the original legislation that we see here.

[3:25 p.m.]

The challenge in having this kind of conversation is it almost necessarily dehumanizes what, at the end of the day, is a fundamentally human tragedy. Again, to end where I began, I can’t think of a…. When you’re talking about that, you have to force yourself almost not to think about the faces that you see, whose funerals you’ve attended, because it becomes very difficult, then, to apply yourself to reading words and numbers.

This tragic loss of life that has impacted all aspects of society, families across British Columbia and across the economic stratus, is unlike anything I think we have experienced. This won’t bring a single person back. It will potentially assist in determining some measure of responsibility for those who have contributed to the tragedy. That will be determined either by a court of law or by admission in a settlement agreement, and that work remains to be done.

All to say that the opposition is more than content to facilitate the passage of the bill into committee stage and hopes that in pursuing the lines of questioning that I have alluded to in the last few moments, the government will understand the role that we need to play in ensuring that, however laudable the ultimate objective, we as an assembly need to ensure that we are doing this in a way that respects the rule of law and does not have unintended consequences that have given rise to the development of the legislation in the first place.

With that, thank you for the opportunity to address the chamber, and I will certainly look forward to the exchange I’ll have with the minister subsequently.

Hon. A. Dix: The member for Saanich North and the Islands is seeking to be recognized, so maybe we’ll give him 30 seconds to make sure he gets recognized in the debate. I may be wrong about that, but maybe if we could just take a 30-second adjournment to allow him to be recognized, and then we’ll go from there. Would that be all right?

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Minister. That was my understanding also.

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I rise today in support of these very important amendments to the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, known here as Bill 34.

I’ll echo the words of the Health Minister and of the opposition speaker just before me, as we are all thinking, as we debate a piece of work like this, of the incalculable loss of lives across the province, from every sector, every community, every demographic. It’s hard to find a family in British Columbia that has not been touched in some way by the loss of the toxic drug crisis, the overdose public health emergency. Everything that we say in this debate and in this chamber is embraced within the belief and the recognition that nothing we say here will bring back the lives lost. This is a response, one of many responses, to a tragedy in British Columbia.

Any family or friends listening, I want you to know that we are with you. We are informed by what all of us in this chamber have heard from families and loved ones. This is one step that looks back and is always infused with what we’ve heard from families. We know this doesn’t bring any lives back.

While much of the attention about response to the toxic drug crisis has been focused on the effects of the highly poisonous and unpredictable toxic illicit drug supply, we know that there is another side: opioid manufacturers who were deceptive in their marketing practices. The things that they did to increase demand for opioids without regard to the consequences have had a devastating impact on communities throughout our country and throughout our province.

This spring, along with the former Attorney General and the next Premier, I announced a proposed settlement of $150 million that represented a significant step forward in holding those companies accountable. It’s the largest health care settlement in Canadian history. It’s the first of its kind, and British Columbia led the country in holding opioid manufacturers and distributors accountable. We led on behalf of all Canadian governments with the original legislation in 2018. The expansion of that 2018 legislation represents what we’ve learned so far, and the Health Minister has outlined this in detail.

Nothing will replace the lives lost in our province, and we continue to use every tool in the toolbox to turn the tide on this terrible crisis. As a government and as a legislature, we are standing up to national pharmaceutical companies. We’re advancing decriminalization. We’re investing in new treatment beds and recovery services. We’re expanding harm reduction measures like prescribed safe supply and working every day to build out a system of care that prevents the loss of life.

I really want…. I’m reminded that when, in 2018, this litigation was first announced, the mayor of Nanaimo at the time, Bill McKay said: “Of all the things, why would you do this? There is so much more that can be done.”

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m always reminded of that conversation and that first instinct from a local government leader, so that every time we talk about this, we have to talk about the rest of the work that is being done.

Having inherited a system in 2017 that didn’t knit together responses to the toxic drug crisis, we’ve since been focusing on system change. Unprecedented investments to build a full spectrum of care for both adults and youth include new and enhanced withdrawal management services. They include transition and assessment services. They include treatment and recovery services and aftercare to make sure that what people learn in treatment can be locked in and last forever.

Just last week I had the great pleasure, on a cold morning up at Top of the World Ranch just near Fort Steele, just outside Cranbrook, with Edgewood recovery services…. It is a for-profit treatment centre that also has a facility in Nanaimo, so I’m well acquainted with the service providers at Edgewood.

Along with representatives of the Ktunaxa First Nation, who themselves operate or used to operate detox and treatment beds for people within their First Nation, along with partners in Interior Health, we walked through what is now known as a recovery ranch, seeing the system of care that has been built together by a private operator. But they are now partnering with Interior Health, and I was there to announce ten publicly funded addiction treatment beds, just another example of adding more services to prevent overdose and to treat addiction.

We also announced, last year, 105 adult treatment and recovery beds that we fund and that the Canadian Mental Health Association manages and administers the contracts for. Since April 2021, more than 600 clients have been able to access those 105 beds. Altogether across B.C., over 3,200 funded adult and youth community substance use treatment beds are available for people throughout the province.

Increasing bed-based services is just one of the ways that we’re building out the system of care to prevent overdose in our province. We’ve also added new outpatient withdrawal management services, new virtual addiction medicine services and expanded medication-assisted treatment where people can receive a prescription medicine to attend to the withdrawal symptoms. For many people, this stabilizes them tremendously. We have roughly 24,000 people across British Columbia who have been accessing this treatment monthly since 2020.

We’re also leading the country on nurse prescribing. This is the only place in the country where a registered nurse or registered psychiatric nurse can write a prescription for a patient. The public health order that enabled this allows them to prescribe the medication-assisted treatment that I just mentioned. So 96 nurses have completed the training to prescribe this medication-assisted treatment and are out in the field prescribing, and another 95 are enrolled in the training or else are right in training right now.

While we build out more treatment, we also have to make it possible to connect more people to treatment. That was the rationale behind decriminalizing people who use drugs in British Columbia, the only place in Canada where this has been done. That’s because we all agree, in this chamber, that addiction is a health care issue, not a criminal justice one. Drug dealing is absolutely a criminal issue, but someone that is addicted to drugs needs medication and treatment just as much as someone who has diabetes or any other health care challenge.

This is shown, in other countries that have already gone down this path, to break down the shame and stigma that prevents people from reaching out and looking for treatment support but also causes people to use drugs alone. In this climate of drug toxicity, using drugs alone often means dying alone. We’re working very closely with health authorities, police and community partners for the implementation of January 31.

[3:40 p.m.]

When this announcement of decriminalization was made, when the federal government gave us the exemption that allowed it, I got a phone call from Guy Felicella, who’s someone in Vancouver who himself has been through incarceration, addiction, multiple overdoses, multiple attempts at treatment. He said: “You just have to know what this is going to mean for someone like me. I might not have survived my addiction, and criminalizing me prevented me from getting into treatment. It almost ended my life.” He was in jail for possession of just, really, a tiny amount of drugs. I am grateful for his voice and the reminder of how transformative this can be.

Never has there been so much investment in substance use treatment and prevention of overdose. But the toxicity of the illicit drug supply is challenging our efforts in every way. The concentration of fentanyl in illicit drug deaths has increased significantly since the start of the pandemic. In the first months of 2020, the coroner reported that people who died of toxic drug overdose had concentrations of fentanyl of between 4 percent and 8 percent. Now, in some months, the coroner reports toxicity as high as 27 percent, and, over the last two years, benzodiazepines, which suppress breathing and do not respond to Narcan. Benzodiazepines detected in deaths has jumped from 15 percent to nearly 50 percent concentration.

To separate people from the toxic drug supply, we expanded access to prescribed safe supply. Over 3,000 prescribers have helped nearly 14,000 people access prescribed safe supply since we launched our program in March 2020, and we continue to work with health authorities to expand the program. More and more people are being prescribed every month.

We know that building that comprehensive and seamless system of care includes early intervention and prevention. That’s why we’ve been opening new Foundry locations across British Columbia. There are 13 open now. There are another nine under construction — the ones that will open soon. When I opened Foundry youth centres this year in both Comox Valley and in Langley, it was so welcoming coming in the front door. These are youth centres that have been designed for and by youth. But colours — the furniture, the whole interface of how you walk into a place like this is designed to make young people feel welcome.

They may be there for primary health care, for mental health counselling, for help with addiction. They may be getting access to birth control. Whatever it is, it’s within a framework of a welcoming environment. What I hear from young people on the ground in places like Langley and Comox Valley is that it has truly transformed their lives, and they themselves often step into leadership in this place.

When I announced a new centre this summer in Fort St. John, there were tears. Fort St. John is a place where I believe the average age is 32 years old. Can you believe that? It’s hard, in the North, to attract health care providers. The loss of life to drug toxicity is endemic in that community and in the industries that it supports. These are life-saving pieces of investment.

These are just some of the examples of the ways that we are tackling the public health emergency, using prevention, treatment, harm reduction, education, and then, as is evidenced in the 2018 legislation and in the amendments to the legislation that are here on the floor today, Bill 34, litigation.

We are standing up new supports in unprecedented ways. We are removing barriers to access to treatment in unprecedented ways, but we are facing a rising tide of need. There is much more for us to do. We are continuing to invest and expand in the supports that people need and deserve, continuing to use every tool in the toolbox to save lives.

I’m grateful for the people on the front line that are doing this work. I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak in this Legislature.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

B. Anderson: The opiate crisis has impacted my community tremendously. The first person that I ever knew that died because of opiates was Colin. He was my brother’s childhood best friend, and he died alone, on his birthday.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m thinking about you today, Colin, but I’m also thinking about all of the parents that have lost their children, all of the partners that have lost their partners, all of the children that have lost parents.

To my friend Janeen, I know that this was an incredibly hard year for you. I am so grateful that we get to be up here today to hold these companies accountable and bring Canada in on this lawsuit. Now, it will never replace the lives that have been lost, but we can help get more support for people that are facing addictions.

A few months ago when I was in the Legislature, I got a message from my CA. A woman that I know — she was actually helping me stuff Christmas cards at Christmastime — who is involved in street culture. She’s often homeless. Right now she does have a home. She had an overdose in our alley. So it was my CA who had to call 911 and, thankfully, this woman, they were able to save her with naloxone.

The ironic part about this was she actually did not intend to use opiates that day. She was smoking weed from a contaminated pipe. Now, I don’t want to get this confused with people thinking that cannabis is laced with fentanyl, because that’s not the case. But there was a contaminated pipe that she was sharing from a friend, and that’s what caused her overdose.

We are so happy that you are still with us today. You’re a wonderful member of our community, and when we’ve had problems in the office, I remember you saying to my staff, “Don’t worry. If anything happens, we’ve got your back,” and we have your back too. To everyone…. And I know everyone in my community has been touched by this crisis, so we need to hold folks to account.

It is a tremendous honour today to be speaking in the Legislature, and it’s a particularly special moment for me, because I have my friend Rebecca Brohman, who’s sitting up there in the gallery. I’ve known her since I was in grade five. We’ve been in grade five together. We moved up to the Yukon together. She is one of my best friends, and she is also a nurse prescriber for the OAT program.

She is working with people every day and helping people get treatment for their addictions. I don’t think that there’s possibly a more hard-working nurse in our system. She really cares for people, and she will go the extra mile to make sure that people in rural areas have treatment for their opiate addiction. This is absolutely what it is. It is an addiction. It’s not a crime. These people need our support. They deserve our help, and this lawsuit will help us get there and hold those companies into account.

I also want to talk about some of the absolutely incredible programs that we have in the Kootenays. Cheryl and your team at ANKORS: you’re absolutely incredible. We are so fortunate that our community was able to get a spectrometer, so if people have a substance that they’re going to consume, they’re able to go get it tested. That spectrometer moves around the community, and Shambhala was actually a huge part of getting that into our community. During Shambhala, it goes up to Shambhala so that people can get their drugs tested there.

They’ve been also leading festivals across North America on how to keep people safe in the midst of an opiate crisis. I’m super grateful for that entire team and the team at ANKORS for the work that they do in our community each and every day.

Another group that I want to just do a huge shout-out to are the street outreach team. We have Jer and Ryall, and they’re out there every single day supporting people that face homelessness. They’re trying to link them up with housing. We actually received naloxone training in our office after the incident. I had done it actually with a restaurant before. One of my friends owns a restaurant. These are business owners. The entire community is trying to get trained up so that when an incident happens, we’re able to respond and we’re able to protect our community. But it shouldn’t have to be like that.

Jer and Ryall are out there every single day. And when we were getting our naloxone training, Jer was telling us how unbelievably it has changed over these last few years. He’s like: “When we thought we were in the trenches ten years ago, we had no idea.” He was telling us how things were happening so fast. He gave the guy one injection. Nothing. Another injection. Nothing. And then he ended up breaking the vial off to try to get more of the naloxone out on the wall because he couldn’t flip it. So he was able to give that person, and he was able to save lives.

[3:50 p.m.]

They are saving lives every single day in our community because of the opiate crisis. So I just want to say thank you. I feel so grateful for this team, the team at ANKORS and for everyone in our health care system that is supporting treatment, that is supporting recovery, and to all of the family members and friends and loved ones that have been impacted or have a family member or a loved one that is facing addiction right now. We want to be here to support you. These are members of our community that are valuable. It’s such a complex crisis, but we need to do everything that we can to keep people safe.

I would just like to thank both of the ministers — this bill is both of theirs, in my opinion — for the work that they do, really, in leading the province, because this is a terrible problem, and we have to solve it.

B. D’Eith: I rise today to speak to Bill 34, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. I want to thank everyone who has spoken so far.

We’re obviously dealing with two health care crises right now. One is, of course, the pandemic that still continues — and the opioid crisis that is taking so many lives away in our communities right across the province, with the tainted drug supply. Our government has been working diligently on this issue since we got in, because it’s clearly one of the toughest health care issues that our communities are all facing.

Part of the plan to move forward to really try to tackle this really tough issue…. Bill 34 is part of the overall suite of matters that the government has been dealing with over the last five years. This particular bill will enable both the government of British Columbia and the government of Canada to pursue recovery from opioid manufacturers, wholesales and other potential defendants in the proposed class action lawsuit that is actually currently happening.

What these amendments do is actually strengthen the act and ensure that, in fact, directors and officers of corporate defendants may also be held accountable. Then, in addition to that, there are another number of clarifying acts which will help with the class action suit.

It’s important to sometimes get behind the corporate veil. As a lawyer, one of the things you learn with limited companies is often they’re set up for the express purpose of basically shielding folks from being able to be sued personally. So this actually being able to sort of pierce the corporate veil, so to speak, to be able to get to directors and officers who may have contributed to this terrible issue is important. It’s important to not only have corporate liability but also look at personal liability in terms of what may or may not have happened during the period of time that the action is happening.

This matter is part of this government’s continuing effort to address the damage that deceptive marketing practices have taken through marketing opioids in the province. It’s very important that these companies — and individuals, if necessary — are held accountable.

It’s interesting, Your Honour…. I’m in legal mode. I can’t help it. We’re talking about class action suits, and I’m right back in my old days.

Earlier this year the plaintiffs reached a proposed settlement with Purdue Pharma for $150 million. This is a negotiated settlement that is, of course, subject to approval by the courts.

[3:55 p.m.]

But it’s very important to see how unprecedented this is. It also shows the leadership of our government in terms of making sure that those companies and, potentially, individuals are held accountable. This has also led to ongoing discussions with other provinces and, of course, the federal government, which leads us here in regards to the need to be able to add the federal government to this action.

While this proposed settlement is a significant step forward, there’s obviously no amount of money that can change the damage that’s been done and bring back and replace the lives that have been lost from addictive substances in our province.

It’s really important to also look at the other steps that this government has been taking to create a system of care. This is part of the ongoing efforts of the Minister of Health, who’s brought this legislation forward, but also the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions. Of course, we’re one of the first jurisdictions in Canada to actually create a ministry that’s dedicated to this very, very important issue of mental health and addictions. The prior minister, in our first term, and now the present minister have been working extremely hard and diligently on this very tough issue.

Obviously, it takes money, and there’s $430 million over the next three years from the 2022 budget that this province has committed to tackling the toxic drug crisis that we have. We’re also, in British Columbia, the first province to receive a three-year exemption from the federal government to remove criminal penalties for people who are possessing small quantities of illicit drugs for personal use. This is so important, because this is a health care issue.

Criminalizing use or small use of illicit drugs places people in a system that criminalizes them for something they need help with. They need support and services to get through this very difficult thing. My own family has dealt with profound mental health issues and addiction issues. I can tell you, from the experience of my family, that it’s not easy for someone who has an addiction to battle that.

I have one relative who’s a recovering addict. Luckily, when he hit rock bottom, he came to our family and said: “Look, I….” This is a good example. He was using alone. I didn’t even know. Our family didn’t know, because he is right in that demographic of the sort of 35 to 45 guy, working in construction, using alone. He had the courage to come to us and say: “I need help.” We were very lucky to be able to get him into detox right away and then subsequently get him into a long-term recovery program. But it wasn’t quick. He was in there for over a year.

When you talk to him about the experience, even now he’ll say: “It’s a battle every day.” This isn’t something that he just suddenly got better and then forgot about it. He deals with the urges and these things every day. It’s an everyday experience.

That’s what we’re looking at, too, in terms of the companies that went out and told doctors, basically: “It’s just fine. Use these drugs.” Quite frankly, some of the opioids did have very important therapeutical uses, especially for cancer patients and others. But this sort of overuse and oversubscription that happened….

[4:00 p.m.]

Then let’s say someone has a car accident, and they get hurt, and they are given opioids. A couple of months later, they’re taken off, or weeks later, they’re taken off. They may have formed an addiction. Then those people may be looking to the street, because they’ve found themselves in a really tough situation.

What do we do when that happens? I think this is why it’s so important that we were able to get this exemption from the federal government, to be able to treat this issue as the health care issue it is and to stop people from hiding their drug use and to stop people from using alone, because that is where we see so many overdoses.

Now, this will be brought in at the end of January 2023. Part of that is because this will give time. We need time for police forces to be trained and health authorities to be prepared for this. I’m actually very optimistic that this is the right way to go. I’m so proud of the Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions, because this is bold. This is a bold move. It’s important. I think society is ready for this action, this movement away from criminalizing addiction, and trying to make sure that we deal with it for what it is, which is a health care issue.

The other thing that happened prior to this was the prescribed safer supply pilot project. It was launched in March 2020, and since then, actually, 12,000 people have been prescribed safer supply. As was mentioned by other speakers, it’s wonderful to see nurses being qualified to prescribe safer supply, because we’re going to need all hands on deck.

We’re moving into the second phase and implementing this with health authorities and federally funded safer program settings. I think the success of the pilot project really speaks well for this type of approach. I think it’s very important — destigmatizing, getting people the help they need.

Another issue that’s happened in terms of harm reduction is that when people think about opioid use, they’ll often think about the use of needles or other types of ways to take opioids. In fact, inhalation has become one of the largest ways of people having overdoses. Supervised consumption services are being increased to include things like inhalation services, which are important. This shows that this is not a static issue. This is something that is evolving and always needs our vigilance.

Part of that technology…. I was just at a lunch with the supercluster of technology, doing amazing things with technology in British Columbia. The Lifeguard App has saved so many lives. Just for people who aren’t familiar with the Lifeguard App, this is an app that connects people who use drugs that automatically contacts first responders if they become unresponsive. This has been used more than 108,000 times by 12,000 app users. Again, this is another tool in the toolbox, part of the arsenal and part of how this government is attacking this terrible crisis.

Another thing that’s happened: as of August 22, there have been more than 1.54 million take-home naloxone kits. They’ve been shipped out, and it’s been reported that 142,000 uses of these kits have stopped overdoses — 142,000. Right now these kits are available in 2,000 locations across the province, including 820 pharmacies. If you know someone who is using opioids, you can get access to naloxone. You can get access to a take-home naloxone kit.

[4:05 p.m.]

Another thing that’s very important in this system of care is recovery and treatment. By 2021, we’d added approximately 220 specialized and public treatment beds in the province. I can say that in Maple Ridge, we actually had two youth treatment beds added to the Maple Ridge Treatment Centre. This is so important, especially for young people who are struggling with addictions. They can get in, they can get stabilized, and then the team can help them find the path that they need to get the treatment that they need to battle the addiction that they’re fighting. This work in addiction recovery…. The 2022 budget actually has $144 million to continue this work.

Now, another…. I was talking about youth. We have a Foundry in Maple Ridge. Foundry is such an amazing place. If you walk in there, they’ve had the young people design how it looks, how it feels. You walk in, and you automatically feel comfortable. You can see the way that the young people have set it up to make it welcoming.

I hear so many times from groups like the LGBTQ2S+ community that finding safe places to go to is really hard. Well, if someone is struggling with their gender identity or any of these things, they can go there. Instead of dealing with those stresses themselves and, in some cases, having huge amounts of anxiety and stress, they can reach out, and there are people there. It’s the same with mental health and addictions. These places are amazing, and I’m so proud that we have that.

There’s also a team-based approach to dealing with the crisis. There are actually 16 substance use teams throughout the province and 29 assertive community teams, ACT teams. These provide 24-7 services to people suffering with mental health challenges, including crisis assessment, intervention, psychiatric and psychological treatment, medication management, and many other services.

There are also CAT teams, community action teams. There are 36 CAT teams throughout the province that actually provide on-the-ground, local partnerships and strategies to address the drug poisoning emergency.

I represent two cities, Maple Ridge and Mission. Both have CAT teams. Leslie Billinton is the CAT co-chair with Kim Dumore. Kim is the project coordinator, and Shayna Guichon is the peer worker with Maple Ridge CAT. This is a multisector group of community and municipal partners that get together. For example, part of this group is Alouette Addictions, Fraser Health, the Salvation Army, school district 42 and many others — really amazing. This group gets together to respond to the opioid crisis, identify challenges, see gaps that are local and address those gaps.

In Mission, we also have a CAT team. The CAT coordinator is Kat Wahamaa, and Zeek Lawrence De Vos is the peer coordinator. Cody Groeneveld is the representative from Mission Community Services. The Mission CAT team — it’s called MOCAT, Mission Overdose Community Action Team — has a large number of stakeholders that are involved.

One thing I always love about Mission…. We have a house. It’s called MY House, which is cute — Mission Youth House, MY House. I once did a two-minute statement, and I couldn’t even read out the number of partners in MY House in two minutes. That’s how many groups were working together.

One thing I do love about both of my communities of Maple Ridge and Mission is how many folks and organizations work together. It’s really interesting to just look…. I know it’s a bit of a list. I don’t want to just read a list, but it’s pretty cool.

[4:10 p.m.]

There are people with lived experience on the CAT team, Community Action Initiative, Fraser Health, the district of Mission, Leq’á:mel First Nations, Sts’ailes First Nations, Mission Community Services Society, Mission Friendship Centre, In-Phase Clinic, Fraser Health, SARA for Women, Matsqui-Abbotsford Impact Society, the Ministry of Social Development and Poverty Reduction and, of course, Moms Stop the Harm and others. It’s really great to see so many community members in our cities work together to help battle this crisis.

Now, the bill that we’re addressing today, which is Bill 34, is part of this ongoing work and this system of care, because making sure that companies and individuals who really jump-started, in a sense, or brought the beginning of the opioid crisis that has just devastated so many communities in North America really need to be taken to account and really need to have the responsibility.

It’s really important to look at the practices that these companies had. What they were doing, and what we submit and what is being submitted by the government, is that they were marketing their products in a deceptive way to doctors, who were then prescribing opioids, and then patients were relying on these. In some cases, people were forced to seek out illicit drugs in an unpredictable market with a toxic drug supply. You have someone who falls off a ladder and hurts their leg and gets an opioid prescription from their injury and could end up buying opioids on the street. That’s something that the over-prescription of opioids led to.

No one is saying that of course these companies were the sole cause of the crisis, but certainly, we are saying they had a big part in this, and they should be held accountable. That’s why making sure that these amendments happen within this act, happen in a way that is most effective so that we can get the government of Canada involved in this…. We actually have litigation that’s ongoing in multiple courts, and it’s happening right now. We expect to have the proposed class action certified by 2023.

Now, we saw what happened with Purdue Pharma. This interim period, this period now, gives other defendants a chance to settle. Obviously, if they’re able to settle, that’s a good thing to move this forward. It’s clear this is moving forward. This has momentum. Clarifying the act is so important in terms of making sure that this is successful. It’s so important that any group that was a cause or partial cause of what has happened — and the number of people who have died, up to nine people a day is tragic; it’s such a tragedy in our communities — needs to be held accountable.

As I said, no amount of money is going to bring people back, but if we look at it, we’re going to need the half a billion dollars that we’re spending on the opioid crisis right now. We need money to save lives too.

I think it’s important that that we hold people accountable but also understand that there’s a huge cost attached to this terrible crisis. People have profited from that, and companies have profited from that, and that’s not right.

A. Singh: Thank you to my friend from Maple Ridge–​Mission for his words and his honesty and laying bare. I know that’s a hard thing to do, and it really is a service to British Columbians, so thank you again.

I’ll carry on from that last sort of note about the culpability of these corporations. There are some phenomenal documentaries out there, some great investigative journalists who have gone out and historically followed the path of the over-prescription. You know, how did we get into this crisis? I urge, if you have time, to go and look at them.

[4:15 p.m.]

Understanding the Opioid Epidemic is one of them, and One Nation, Overdosed. Another one: Dr. Feelgood. It really sort of explains where that culpability should lie.

Then we speak about the settlement with Purdue Pharma, and Do No Harm is a phenomenal documentary that actually deals with that pharmaceutical company and how they essentially misled physicians to overprescribe opioids at that time and how that led to, historically…. It contributed significantly to the epidemic that we’re in now and, hence, the early settlement with that. They’ve admitted their culpability not just here but in other places as well. I think that shows…. But really good documentaries done by very brave investigative journalists that follow the path of over-prescription, leading to the situation that we have today, which is a really tragic situation — the number of deaths that there are.

It’s no secret here that I am part of a recovery community. There are several people that I know who, over the last few years, have passed away, people that I considered friends and acquaintances or at least part of my fellowship — more than I can count on these fingers. It’s just not people in recovery, as my friend, earlier, from Nelson-Creston stated. It’s people who may be using a poisoned supply that’s tainted, accessing a substance that’s legal, but it may be tainted. All it takes is that one little thing.

The word “fentanyl” is such a strong word these days. I had some medical procedures done, as people know, and in one of them, I was lying down. The doctor is speaking to the nurse, and the doctor says to the nurse something like: “Four micrograms of fentanyl. Do it in the IV.” And my immediate reaction was sort of shock and fear, because we associate fentanyl with death, essentially, at this point, whereas it is really a useful pharmaceutical tool for doctors.

This epidemic is just…. It’s daunting, frankly. It’s daunting, and it’s something that will take a lot of energy to deal with, to solve. What bills like this do, what bills like the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act do…. It’s part of a vast, as my friend from Maple Ridge–Mission has spoke about…. I won’t go through those facts and the things that our government has done. It’s part of this vast array of things that we’re doing to try and deal with this situation.

The epidemic of poisoned supply doesn’t just affect…. It’s not the immediate people who are…. It’s not just deaths. It goes beyond that, and it goes to some of the things that we spoke about very passionately in this House earlier today, in question period. It also deals with the deterioration of mental health over these past few years, the cycle. So many times I’ve seen that cycle, in my past career, where someone has gone from a petty criminal to something much more serious, because they’re seeking that. They’re addicted. They have a mental disease, and they’re seeking that high, and at some point or other, it turns tragic, not only for themselves but for society as well.

So we need to deal with that. We need to be tough on that. As my friend the Attorney General said earlier, we need to be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime. That’s what this bill is part of. It’s part of this array of things that we’re bringing in to be tough on the causes of crime.

[4:20 p.m.]

The other thing that things like this do, subtly, is…. Again, my friend from Maple Ridge–Mission spoke about his story, his personal experiences.

One of the biggest barriers in this whole realm is the barrier of stigma. When you put things up front and you show people that we are behind this, that we’re putting this thing out, you are defeating stigma. You’re doing that. So this is part of that array of solutions that we have to defeat stigma. Frankly, that is one of the biggest barriers to seeking treatment, to seeking help. If a person can get over that stigma, then they’re more than halfway there.

We have started to invest. We have been investing for the last few years. Once they’ve gotten over that stigma and they reach out with that hand for help, there are services, like the Foundry and other services, there to hold their hand and take them through it. So really, really important legislation if we look at the whole context, not only of the opioid epidemic but also of law and order, of what’s happening today.

Also, it has a great deterrent effect on corporations. I mean, these corporations…. The malfeasance that existed, especially with Purdue, who has admitted to it in the U.S., and now here as well…. This is…. Frankly, the word “reprehensible” sort of comes into my mind. They knew what they were doing, You watch those documentaries, and it wasn’t by mistake or inadvertence. This was clear recklessness, wilful blindness, if I’m going to be generous. If I’m not going to be generous, then it was intentional.

We need to hold those companies to account. We need to hold those companies to account for the deterrent effect and also for the actual effect of gaining that compensation back so that we can deal with the health care costs that are there and the costs to society that are there. Frankly, I don’t think we’ll ever be able to really recover those costs. They’re not limited to monetary. They are the tragic consequences to thousands of families who have lost loved ones. You can’t recover that. That’s gone forever and ever.

What we can do now is…. We can pass legislation like this that shows a strong hand, that shows that we’re tough on this and that acts as a deterrent effect to other corporations to do this in the future.

Prior to this, there was litigation on tobacco. Again, legislation like this, warning labels on cigarettes, things like that, do have an effect. It might have taken 20 to 30 years, in that realm, to have an effect.

If you know the history a little bit…. It wasn’t a legislative thing. That was a brave U.S. Surgeon General who took it upon himself to have labelling in the early ’70s and to force that on tobacco companies, a vigilante action by an administrator put in by the government. It didn’t have an immediate effect. I mean, I grew up in the ’70s and ’80s, and I remember taking buses and people smoking everywhere. You don’t see that anymore.

This stuff, legislation like this, indications from government, has an effect over the long term. Really, if we want to deal with the epidemic that we have right now, we have to…. It’s been coming down for a long time. It didn’t show up yesterday. It has been made over time, and we will have to look at solutions that solve this or deal with it over time.

This action really is another step in our continued response, as I’ve said earlier, to the ongoing public health emergency. I think one of the….

[4:25 p.m.]

Before I go to the overall messages that there are in this legislation…. One of our responsibilities to the people listening out there on Hansard — I’m not sure; there are some — is to explain this legislation, right? So this is for you, to explain this legislation. I am going to go through the bill. If you read it….

I think sometimes there are fears, fear of something that’s unfamiliar. Bills are like that. Legislation is like that.

One of the greatest things about legislation, as it has evolved over the last 20 or 30 years, is that we, our legislators, this House, have made it much plainer than it used to be. I went to law school in the ’90s, almost 30 years ago. I remember legislation from those days, and I remember court decisions from those days and the Latin words that we used that were still part of that thing.

This is very different. It’s fairly easy to read and fairly easy to understand, but people may still be afraid to go through it.

Right in section 1(b), we have exactly the reasoning for why we’re passing this bill. I spoke about the social costs of opioids and the opioid epidemic, but there are also direct health care costs. We’ll recover some of those. We’re not going to recover all of those. Again, we understand that by passing legislation like this, there’s a deterrent effect. There’s also the effect of decreasing stigma.

Subsection 1(b) says it right there. Cost of health benefits means “the present value of the total expenditure by the government for health care benefits provided for insured persons as a result of opioid-related disease…and the present value of the estimated total expenditure by the government for health care benefits that could reasonably be expected to be provided for those insured persons” — if you’re a resident of British Columbia, you’re generally insured — “as a result of opioid related…injury….”

Really, the thrust of this legislation is to recover the costs that our public system loses because of the negligence of these companies and because of collusion by gangsters and because of malfeasance by people in our society.

Don’t be worried. I won’t go through every single section. I’ll just highlight some of the ones that….

Interjection.

A. Singh: “Do it. Go through the whole thing.” Okay, I’ll go through more of it than I was going to.

The bill is expansive. It looks at the present value. It incorporates future valuation as well.

Subsection 1(d) expands the definition of “manufacturer” by adding “active ingredient.” It’s not just the opioid product but the active ingredient of the opiate product. Lawyers, especially for large corporations, are experts at technicalities and squeezing through and getting away because of that. What this does is address that.

Again, 1(d), (e) and (f) essentially all deal with that. In 1(f), in the definition of “opioid-related wrong,” it strikes out “a manufacturer or wholesaler” and substitutes it with “a manufacturer, wholesaler or consultant.” Again, we’re dealing with the technicality of who is caught within the purview of this act.

This is a very serious subject. I find section (g) interesting. In high school, math, science, physics were what I studied. My undergraduate, when I went to university, was physics. Section (g) is all about equations and physics and mathematics. Whenever I see mathematics in legislation, I always find that quite interesting.

Essentially, it’s a formula. I’m still amazed at who came up with this formula or which of our great administrators got that. It’s a formula for figuring out exactly the pharmaceutical companies’ market share and then figuring out what their monetary culpability is. We can assign blame based on how much they made, what part of the market share they had, and (h) is the same thing as well. So mms = mm/MM x 100 percent. We won’t go into that.

[4:30 p.m.]

The other thing that this piece of legislation does is…. We had already started the lawsuits. There’s a class action that may be certified not too far away. We started these in B.C. Supreme Court. It’s a court of inherent jurisdiction. Provincial health authorities are…. There was a whole slew of cases in the teens, the ’20s and ’30s. If you ever end up taking some law courses, you’ll be familiar with them. These cases all went through our court system up to the House of Lords in England. You would have Viscount…. I can’t remember their names. Lord So-and-so and Viscount So-and-so actually made the final determination on these cases.

There’s a whole slew of cases on jurisdiction. There was a big fight between the federal government and the provincial governments. There was a back and forth of who has control over what. The federal government wanted control over everything. In the constitution, they had this great all-encompassing phrase called POGG — we acronymed it — which is peace, order and good government.

What the federal government liked to do in those days was say that this was part of their jurisdiction because it was part of the peace, order and good government of Canada. The provinces would fight back. Anyway, in those fights back and forth between the province and the federal government, the House of Lords eventually ruled on some jurisdictional issues, and the administration of health fell to the provinces. So naturally, suing these pharmaceutical companies falls to the province’s purview, and we’ve done that.

But the government of Canada also has some losses here as well. What section 3 does is it amends the legislation to allow for direct action by the government of Canada so that there’s no excuse by pharmaceutical companies that: “Hey, government of Canada, you can’t sue us because this is not within your jurisdiction. You have no standing here.” What section 3, 2.1 does is it gives….

Again, it’s a legal concept. It’s a concept of standing. If you don’t have something in the game…. You can’t sue if you don’t have a place in the game. This gives the government of Canada standing to sue as well.

In 2.1: “The government of Canada has a direct and distinct action”— so direct action and distinct action, separate from our action — “against a manufacturer, wholesaler or consultant to recover the cost of health care benefits….” Again, that’s one of the things this piece of legislation does. Those are basically two of the biggest pushes of this act.

Lastly, if you watch those documentaries, especially Do No Harm, talking about Purdue, you’ll see that it wasn’t inadvertent. It wasn’t even wilful blindness or recklessness. It was partially intentional. What section 10 does is add in joint and several liability for directors and officers. If they know that they’re doing this, if they have any…. If they know that this is what they are doing, they’re directly liable for this as well.

What is the effect of that? If you’re going to act bad, you should have to pay for it, and that’s essentially what it does. It’s, again, a very strong deterrent to any directors, anyone who has controlling authority in any of those corporations. It’s a message to them that you better not do anything bad, because if you do get caught, you will be liable, and we’ll hit you where it hurts you most, which is usually, for corporations and directors of these corporations, in their pockets.

As was spoken earlier this year, the corporation that’s really the subject of the Do No Harm documentary, Purdue Pharma, reached a proposed settlement with the plaintiffs for $150 million. It’s a negotiated settlement. It still has to be proved by the courts. It will be distributed among provinces.

[4:35 p.m.]

Just the fact of bringing these things out and having legislation, we’ve already seen an effect. Again, litigation hasn’t really gone that far. These class cases haven’t even been certified yet, and there’s already one settlement. I presume that most of these cases, like with the tobacco litigation, will just end up being settled, because the evidence against the opioid manufacturers is overwhelming.

I’m going to sort of conclude it off in the next nine to ten minutes.

This is part of British Columbia’s comprehensive ap­proach to addressing the ongoing public health emergency, including our acts on decriminalization. Again, the disease of addiction really is a disease of attrition, it’s a disease of time, and it’s a disease of stigma.

One of the greatest ways to increase stigma on anything is to criminalize it. By criminalizing something, you push it right into the corner. No one’s going to ask for help if they think that society thinks of them is a criminal. We’ve gotten far beyond that. We recognize that addiction is a mental health issue. It’s a health issue.

Our acts on decriminalization, on the section 56 exemp­tion, are all part of this array of action that I was talking about in dealing with not just the opioid crisis but all of the social ills, all of the social impacts that come from deteriorating mental health. It’s timely because we all know that because of the isolation and the stress of the last two years, that spiral has accelerated tremendously. We see it on the streets. This is part of that array of solutions that we have that we hope will be a long-term solution to these social problems that we have right now.

We’ve also added new treatment and recovery services, opening many Foundries. We have a Foundry in Richmond. We’ve invested in new harm reduction supports, like prescribed safe supply.

Again, these amendments that we’re announcing today really address cost recovery, act as a deterrent. They strengthen the act. They allow the Canadian government, the federal government, to sue, to be part of this litigation. They hold not only the corporations, the corporate entities themselves but their directors…. If there’s malfeasance, they’re liable. Only a few pages but quite an impact.

I spoke earlier about lawsuits that already exist. We sued. We started litigation against the opioid companies in 2018. There are multiple court hearings that are currently scheduled, and there are multiple actions in the Supreme Court that have been brought not only by us but also by the defendants. It’s expected that the court will certify a proposed class action, it will move towards certification, in 2023.

As I said, we’ve already seen Purdue Pharma come to the table and settle. My guess is — looking at what happened in the United States and seeing the overwhelming amount of evidence there is that the directors and these corporations, corporate entities, knew what they were doing — that there will be more settlements just like the Purdue settlement.

So $150 million is a lot of money — but not a lot in light of, really, the harm that has been done. But the settlement that we have reached with Purdue is unprecedented. My understanding is that we’re currently in discussion with provinces all over Canada and the federal government to figure out how to distribute that, how to allocate that settlement on a basis that’s principled and that’s fair and equitable to all, not only all the provinces but all the victims.

[4:40 p.m.]

One of the questions that may be asked is: “Really? There were deceptive marketing practices that led to this crisis?” Yes. In some ways, we are saying that. As I said, I pointed you to a few documentaries that are phenomenal. I’m going to read the names of those documentaries again: Understanding the Opioid Epidemic; One Nation, Overdosed; Dr. Feelgood — actually, a really good documentary, not as professionally made, but an excellent documentary; and Do No Harm, which really focuses on the company that we’ve settled with.

The practices used by opioid companies…. This goes back to the ’80s and ’90s. You look at them now, knowing the effects of OxyContin and other opioids…. It’s quite shocking that they would push drugs like that, right? That they would tell physicians that there was essentially no real negative effect. Doctors and the public were duped into overprescribing these opioids.

This had massive consequences for people’s health, including the negative impact of increased demand for and reliance on opioids. What that does, obviously — it pushes people that can’t access them to the black market. What effect does that have? It gives more money to gangs. It gives more money to organized crime. What effect does that have? It creates a worsening law and order situation for all of us.

This is not the sole cause of the crisis, but it’s a significant cause of the crisis that we’re in today. I’m really proud to be part of a government that’s addressing that. I know that my friends on the other side are fairly in agreement with this as well. I’m proud that we have a House that’s probably fairly united in addressing this.

I’m going to end with…. This is a tragic situation that we’re in today. There are many different aspects that sort of come together to put us in this situation. The greed of organized crime. The greed of pharmaceutical companies. That’s one of the undercurrents that’s there, is that greed. By hitting them where it hurts them — by hitting them financially — what it does is it addresses that greed. It acts as a deterrent, not just for opioids, but for other things. Who knows what’s out there, right? It acts as a deterrent for corporations, for parties that know that they’re offering a product to consumers that is dangerous. It acts as a deterrent to prevent them from misleading the public.

Again, I’ll say I’m really proud that I’m part of a government that has introduced the original legislation, the amendments, the array of services and legislation and laws and investments that there are that form part of this, part of our whole service structure around mental health and addictions. Thank you to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, who spoke earlier. Thank you to my friends. That’s all.

M. Dykeman: It’s a privilege to rise in the House today to speak to Bill 34, the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2022.

The province has introduced amendments that would allow the federal government to join in a B.C.-led class action lawsuit against opioid manufacturers and permit the expansion of the number of defendants. This is something that the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and the Minister of Health have spoken passionately about, with B.C. leading the country in holding opioid manufacturers and distributors accountable. By expanding this litigation legislation, they are bolstering those efforts.

[4:45 p.m.]

We have seen an incredible amount of loss of lives through this crisis over a number of years. I believe it was about 10,000 since 2016. Nothing will replace those lives that have been lost. And the incredible emotional impact that this has had on families, the sense of loss, the families who have experienced losing a brother or sister, a child, a mother, a father, a relative…. Often, when we think of a crisis like this, we don’t see these as anything but numbers, but these are family members. These are people that are loved by their family and who were once — and, in some cases, passed away as — children.

The impact on that for society is immeasurable. I read some statistics recently about this actually being second only to cancer, and that really does make a significant impact when you think about it that way. We think about the efforts that have gone into dealing with things like cancer. We look at the efforts of all levels of government.

I mean, the provinces, territories and Canadian government have said that they’re going to continue to aggressively work together until the defendants have been held accountable. This is something that’s required resources like nothing I can think of in the history of my memory, the number of resources and level of coordination of government to hold — something that’s been so incredibly impactful on our society — a group accountable like this.

In 2018, British Columbia commenced a class action lawsuit on behalf of provincial and territorial governments in Canada and enacted the Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act to support the class action. The aim of this class action and legislation is for the government to be able to recover the costs of health care provided to patients that resulted from wrongful conduct of opioid manufacturers, distributors and their consultants. The class action suit is expected to be certified in 2023.

So Purdue Pharma, as we’ve heard other colleagues of mine mention, is among 40 manufacturers and distributors that have been named in the class action. And the province has reached a first-of-its-kind settlement to recover health care costs related to the sale and marketing of highly addictive opioids.

British Columbia is committed to continuing its efforts to address the damage this deceptive marketing of opioids has had on the province by introducing amendments to the legislation. It’s another step in the continued response to an ongoing public health emergency.

Earlier, as I mentioned, a settlement was reached with Purdue, but this proposed settlement does represent a very significant step forward in holding Purdue and others accountable. But as I was talking about earlier, it just won’t replace the impact it’s had on families and communities. But it’s a step in accountability, which is so important and is one of the limited things as a government that we really can do to help with such a terrible situation. It’s to create space to at least have some accountability for what really is such a challenging public health emergency.

In the comprehensive approach that British Columbia is taking to addressing this public health emergency, other steps have been taken, like decriminalization, adding new treatment and recovery services and investing in new harm reduction supports like prescribed safe supply.

[4:50 p.m.]

The $150 million settlement that I mentioned earlier this year that has been reached with Purdue Pharma really is quite unprecedented. There are ongoing discussions of what that will look like. But the announcement today is simply about strengthening the act and ensuring that directors and officers of corporate defendants can be held accountable and make clarifying amendments.

I’d like to just take a moment, though, to talk about how this has impacted Langley. Langley is such a really lovely community which, as I’ve mentioned before in this House, has got this really fast-growing urban core and also has a very large rural area. Specifically within my riding of Langley East, between 75 and 80 percent of the land is in the ALR, which concentrates a lot of the growth. But we have vibrant communities in both areas.

Some families that have lived there…. For instance, one of the councillors who just actually finished serving his third term is a dairy farmer and has lived there with his family on the original Hudson’s Bay lands for over 150 years. But then in the north, we have this fast-growing area.

Recently I met with constituents who had just moved here from the east coast and were excited to come to Langley to raise their young family. Thinking back to when I moved to Langley and when my children were very young…. This was well before this opioid crisis was something that really had been talked about a lot. I remember I was thinking back to that time, and I never would have thought that since 2016, our communities lost 247 local people.

That is such a shocking number to think of in such a short period of time. It’s a community that’s not immune. I mean, we know that over 10,000 lives in the province have been lost since the first public health emergency was declared in April 2016.

One of the people who has been a very strong proponent in our community — fighting for services, being an advocate for people who need access to services and being able to bring people together to provide a bunch of needed services — is a gentleman by the name of Daniel Snyder. He chairs something called the Langley Overdose Response: community action team. He is so committed to making sure that people understand that deaths like these are happening across Langley. That is an important aspect of dealing with challenges like this.

Although the amendments today don’t specifically address what I’m about to talk about, they are related and an important component. As I talked about earlier, the legislation opens up ways for groups to be held accountable. But on the ground every day, because these are families that are affected, you need people like Daniel Snyder and others in our community who provide the on-the-ground education, resources and services that allow people to access the help they need and families to access the help they need when they’re facing something, especially when you have a toxic drug supply.

We are two communities: Langley township and Langley city. This crisis affects both areas. We recently had International Overdose Awareness Day, which was spearheaded by Daniel’s group and other organizations. We have just this year, between January and April, seen 15 people in Langley pass away as a result of the toxic drug supply. We saw, in 2021, 56 deaths from the illicit toxicity, which was a significant increase from the 38 that we saw the year before. International Overdose Awareness Day is a day that raises awareness about challenges like that.

[4:55 p.m.]

The community action team is actually made up of 30 members which serve the township of Langley and the city. They focus on things like community anti-stigma education and building a strong peer team. It’s actually the world’s largest annual campaign committed to ending overdose, remembering the stigma of those who have died and acknowledging the grief of the family and the friends that were left behind. It raises awareness in this area about what really is such a challenging public health crisis. Its hope is to stimulate action and discussion about evidence-based overdose.

The goals of that awareness day are: to provide an opportunity for people to publicly mourn loved ones in a safe environment, some for the first time, without feeling any guilt or shame; to include the greatest number of people in International Overdose Awareness Day events and encourage nondenominational involvement; to give community members information about the issue of fatal and nonfatal overdose; to send a strong message to current and former people who use drugs that they are valued; to stimulate discussion about overdose prevention and drug policy; to provide basic information on the range of support services that are available; to prevent and reduce drug-related harm by supporting evidence-based policy and practice; and to inform people around the world about the risk of overdose.

Something that is so important when groups get together like this to provide services in times of crisis like this…. You really do reach people you regularly wouldn’t reach. I mean, it’s a time where a lot of people feel a lot of shame and stigma for drug use, so it could be a hard group to reach, because it’s not very visible. We hear numbers, but as I was saying earlier, we don’t see faces, necessarily, unless we have groups like the one that Daniel Snyder’s table spearheads to bring faces and bring stories to the loved ones that we’ve lost.

I really am grateful for the work he does in our community, because he took it on at a time when there wasn’t really a lot of conversation in this area. So stepping forward and providing that support for families and the conversations that come out of that, in conjunction with the work that’s being done by the province, really does provide true wraparound services for people in a crisis like this.

Before 2015 in Langley, it was rare to see more than ten deaths a year from street drugs, so to see 15 in the first quarter is quite impactful. It really is putting it in perspective, thinking about Langley and the population. Since 2012, in the province, we’ve seen 11,262 people die, as of the time of the statistics that I’m quoting.

I wanted to talk about one last thing with the community action table that I mentioned that Daniel Snyder has worked so hard to spearhead. Another thing that they did that I’d like to just take a moment to share with the House is actually provide an overdose response card in Langley. The city and township first responders distribute this card to help people suffering from addiction, and it really is a wonderful program. They’ve put together 500 cards to be distributed.

They developed this card, trying to fill the gaps in terms of our fire responding to overdoses and the need for information to be available to people in that position. It allows them how to access naloxone and relevant local resources. The cards have multiple resources, addresses and phone numbers for people who are suffering from addiction, including Langley Community Services Society, Langley Mental Health and Substance Use Centre, Lookout Housing and Health Society, and Moms Stop the Harm, all groups that have been instrumental in the response and part of the table that I mentioned.

Having these in the hands of first responders when somebody has received medical attention…. Having that card allows the person who has received the medical attention to be able to access resources needed at a time when those resources are very significantly needed. It is something that is available on the action table’s Facebook page, which you can find by searching.

[5:00 p.m.]

Healthy connections really can change and save lives. They also let people know that the community cares and that people the experiencing challenges are seen and supported, something that is so difficult. It’s a difficult message to get to people, when you think about, once again, the shame that people feel when they are in a position where they are facing an addiction.

Our government has escalated responses as a result of the drug poisoning. Those resources, as I mentioned at the beginning of this, include decriminalization. B.C. is the first province to receive a three-year exemption. We’ve provided access to a prescribed safer supply, another Canadian first. We’re the first province to offer prescribed safe supply. We have an overdose prevention and supervised consumption service, and British Columbia is expanding that access to overdose prevention services that offer a range of services in communities hardest hit by the drug-poisoning crisis.

We have the Lifeguard App, a free app that helps save lives by automatically connecting people who use drugs to first responders if the user becomes unresponsive. We have take-home naloxone kits. As of August 2022, more than 1.5 million kits have been shipped, a significant number. We have enhanced treatment and recovery, new beds for addiction and recovery care, expanded scope of nursing practice and medication-assisted treatment and more flexible treatment outcomes.

We also have improved the substance-use system of care with new teams to keep people connected to services and treatment and 24-7 support for people living with serious mental health challenges, enhanced mental health crisis lines and bolstered the community response with a community crisis innovation fund; the community action teams, like the one that I talked about in Langley; and having people with lived and living experience who are supported by investments to be involved in building a provincewide network of people who use drugs to share experience and expertise; as well as funding for peer and family support networks.

We have Indigenous-led solutions — so First Nations–run treatment and healing centres, provincial drug-poisoning emergency response for First Nations communities, and Métis-led mental health and wellness initiatives.

With these services — along with the accountability measure that Bill 34 will provide, under the leadership of the Minister of Health, the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions — our community, our province is on the way to really leading the way in addressing what has been a very challenging number of years, something that’s impacted thousands of families, friends, brothers, sisters, mothers, sons.

Seeing this come through today as another part of a bigger action to allow better accountability is something that I am proud to stand — I’m saddened that we’re here — and speak in favour of, Bill 34.

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

Leave granted.

Introductions by Members

R. Russell: As a relatively new member here, there are a lot of people that helped get us to this place. Once we’re here, we really depend on staff to be able to do our jobs well, and that is the enabling kind of opportunity. Particularly, again, as a new member, the staff that greeted me here, my LA when I first started, was incredibly important, super funny as well.

It is her birthday today, so I wanted to wish her a very happy birthday. This is Trudy Maygard. She is somewhere between zero and 100, I will say, maybe about in the middle.

Anyway, so thank you, Trudy, for everything that you did for me when we first got here. It really is a privilege. I’m happy to have known you.

May the House wish her a happy birthday with me.

[5:05 p.m.]

Debate Continued

N. Sharma: It’s really my honour to speak in favour of this piece of legislation. I’ll just have a few brief words and comments on it.

Clearly, as my other colleagues have talked about, this is a huge crisis in British Columbia. Over 10,000 people have died over six years. We’ve had a chance to dive in through our Select Standing Committee on Health about who is dying and whose voices are grieving right now for those families that have been lost. Some of those stats, I think, are sobering, and it’s good for British Columbians to understand.

Indigenous women die a 9.8 times higher rate than other women. For youth, it’s the top cause of death. For young adults, it’s the top preventable cause of death. Men show up disproportionately in those that are dying. Eight out of ten of those who have died are men, and 69 percent are dying alone, and one-fifth of them are in the construction, trade and transport industry.

I know this is a complex challenge that requires many solutions, and the piece of legislation that we’re talking about today is one of those solutions. Holding to account those companies that were profiting on the suffering and loss of life that we’ve experienced here and around the world is exactly part of the moves and the leadership that we need on this issue. I’m so proud of this government for leading the charge and bringing, now expanding, the legislation so Canada and other jurisdictions can come on board.

This is part of the many solutions that we’re putting forward to solve this very complicated problem and help stop the loss of life. We’re leading in other ways too — $430 million into the pathways of hope and the implementation of that document that has many pillars, including leading the charge on decriminalization, reducing the stigma that people need to feel and not be criminalized for something that is a health issue, safer supply and a safer supply policy that helps to address the toxicity that exists today in our drug supply.

I want to also just briefly mention the front-line workers who are like Sarah Blyth, close to where my riding is, who set up the first OPS site, responding to the needs of the people that were dying in her community and our communities. These are real champions, and I know for a fact that they’re tired. They’re burnt out. They’ve seen way too many deaths of people that they loved and cared about.

I want to acknowledge that we’re here with them today and that we’re sorry for all the losses that were suffered in their community. But we’re also commending them for the courage that they show in challenging how drug policies show up for the most vulnerable people and being on their side during that time.

We know that treatment and recovery is also important. That’s why we’re investing so much in treatment and recovery for people to have the right option when they need it and how they need it to get on a path to healing and recovery.

I just wanted to make a few brief comments, but I also just want to say I’m so proud of the many efforts that the Minister of Health and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions have been doing over the past few years to champion this very complex problem and be on the side of those families that are suffering today in B.C. and who have suffered through drug policies that have not worked for people.

I’m really grateful for that work, and I know that all together with the many pillars that we’re attacking this problem with, we’ll be able to hopefully save some lives and hold accountable those that would do harm for profit.

Deputy Speaker: Minister of Health to close debate.

Hon. A. Dix: I wanted to express my appreciation to all those who participated in the debate — the member for Abbotsford West, bringing the support, I think, of the official opposition to this important legislation. I appreciate his comments. I look forward to having an exchange of views with him with respect to the details of the bill at committee stage. I think that that will be a productive process, and I look forward to that, probably early next week.

In addition, I want to express my appreciation to other members of the House who spoke about the substance of the bill but also connected that substance in such an important and moving way to circumstances in communities across B.C. The member for Richmond-Queensborough, the member for Maple Ridge–Mission, the member for Langley East, the member for Nelson-Creston and, of course, the Minister of Mental Health all participated in the debate, as did the member for Vancouver-Hastings.

[5:10 p.m.]

What was profound about what they said is that the issues that are the subject of this court case that was undertaken under the leadership of the member for Vancouver–Point Grey…. It has already brought provinces together and is seeing some success in terms of generating results and holding people accountable. It is an important action, but while it’s occurring in the court, it is deeply connected with the profound tragedy and challenges of the overdose public health emergency in communities in every part of British Columbia.

I appreciate all of those contributions to the debate.

With that, I move second reading.

Motion approved.

Hon. A. Dix: I move that the bill be committed to a Committee of the Whole House at the next sitting of the House after today.

Bill 34, Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2022, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.

G. Heyman moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

Deputy Speaker: This House stands adjourned until Monday at 10 a.m.

The House adjourned at 5:11 p.m.