Orders of the Day

Hon. L. Beare: In this House, I call, in Committee of the Whole, Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

In the Douglas Fir Room, I call, in Committee of the Whole, Bill 31, Emergency and Disaster Management Act.

[2:30 p.m.]

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

(continued)

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 36; J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 2:32 p.m.

On clause 2 (continued).

The Chair: We’ll call the committee to order. We’re discussing Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023.

M. Morris: We left after a long afternoon last week on clause 2.

I’ll make sure that I’ll try and colour within the lines with respect to the minister’s sensitivities around the JR that’s been implemented by the city of Surrey. I’m going to go back to, basically, where we left off last week.

During committee stage last week, the minister responded to my question on whether or not any municipality was not meeting their duties and responsibilities under section 15(1) as referenced under clause 2 of this bill. The minister responded that it is not about whether a community is meeting its responsibility under section 15, but it’s whether or not communities that are under a proposed transition, whether their proposal would adversely impact section 15 — if I’ve got that right.

Now, turning to section 3.1(2)(b), I need a little more clarification as to how the minister arrives at the determination that a proposed transition would adversely affect the ability of the municipality to fulfil their respective duties under section 15(1), outside of the metrics used to measure crime rates, caseloads, clearance rates, etc.

I’m just looking at: what other criteria does the minister use to make that determination that the proposal adversely affects the future of policing in the respective municipality? Long question.

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

I want to take this opportunity just to reference a couple of points that were made, and it may well relate to what the member is talking about. There were two points that were raised in particular last week.

One of them was: should a bill be stood down, given it relates to a judicial review or other legal proceeding? As I noted during our earlier debate, we will not be standing down the legislation as a result of the judicial review. The business of the Legislature would be thwarted and undermined if a person could bring legislation to a halt by commencing an action that related to the subject matter of the legislation.

[2:35 p.m.]

I’d like to take this opportunity to remind the committee of the Campbell case in 1999, when three opposition members brought a challenge against the B.C. and the federal government respecting the proposed treaty with the Nisg̱a’a Nation. The challenge was brought before governments had ratified the treaty by way of the settlement legislation.

The plaintiffs applied to the court to set a trial date. At the time of the plaintiffs’ application, the government had introduced legislation to implement the treaty, but the legislation had not yet passed second reading.

Mr. Justice Williamson denied the request and ruled that it would be inappropriate to set a trial date in advance of the settlement legislation being passed by the provincial and federal governments. In his ruling, he said the following respecting the independent roles of both the Legislature and the judiciary.

He said:

“Under our system of government, it is essential that the courts respect the right of parliament and of the legislative assemblies to exercise unfettered freedom in the formulation, tabling, amendment and passage of legislation. This obligation is no less than that of the duty of the legislative and executive branches to respect and define the independence of the judiciary. These are matters fundamental to our democratic beliefs, our history and our constitution, and they should not be impinged upon lightly, if at all.”

That relates to the question that we were talking about in terms of whether or not to stand down the legislation.

In regards to what the member has just raised, and it was the subject of the discussion we had — and I know that it was related to the issue of Surrey — I just want to say this. Regarding my decision in respect of the Surrey police transition, I note that these questions are not directly relevant to debate of this bill. However, they are of interest to the members, so I would like to provide some details now in the hope that the remainder of our debate will focus on the details of the bill.

I decided that in order to ensure adequate and effective policing in the city of Surrey and the province as a whole, the city must continue its transition to the Surrey police service. Unfortunately, due to the pending judicial review commenced by the city of Surrey, I am not able to discuss the specific considerations that inform my decision.

However, I can share the following excerpt from the decision letter provided to Surrey:

“The adequate and effective level of policing required by the Police Act mandates that a sufficient number of trained officers are available to meet the jurisdiction’s policing needs and ensure public safety. The recent decision by Surrey city council to return to the RCMP without a plan to ensure the stability of the Surrey police service has destabilized policing in that jurisdiction and has subsequent implications for policing the rest of the province.”

It is my duty to ensure that the citizens of Surrey are safe and have confidence in an adequate and effective level of policing and that decisions in one jurisdiction do not have a negative impact on policing in the province as a whole. Therefore, that’s why the decision was made.

That relates, I believe, to the question that the member just had, which is there are a whole range of matters that are taken into account, not just, as we talked about last week, as the member was talking about, caseload and crime rates, but things such as staffing levels. How would you restaff? Impacts on other communities and other parts of the province.

All of those things are part and parcel of a decision that would go into what we are talking about, adequate and effective policing.

M. Morris: I appreciate the minister’s explanation on that, and I do look forward to the clarification provided by the JR that will be forthcoming on a number of these issues that we’ve been talking about with this amendment.

I did ask the question last week, and I’d like to ask it again for clarity. Has the minister availed himself of any research reports conducted by the director of police services under section 40 that have led him to include the provisions of section 312(b) in this bill?

The director of police services has a number of responsibilities that I’m aware of. I’m just curious to see whether the minister has or whether the director of police services has surfaced any issues prior to the transition taking place with Surrey that has added content to this particular bill.

[2:40 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The reality is that what’s in the bill here is based on the experience that has occurred during the transition, to ensure that a future Solicitor General does not have to experience the challenges and the difficulties that this has caused.

M. Morris: My next question, then, would be: is this the only transition that the minister has been presented with over the last seven years? Or are there other examples of where this lack of clarity, I suppose, has had implications on municipalities over 5,000?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is the first time we’ve had a transition and then a proposed reversal. Given the size of the transition and the potential size of the reversal, that’s why this legislation is coming forward.

M. Morris: I appreciate that response. The average transition…. Just to be clear, as the minister describes, the purpose of the bill is all based on the experiences the ministry has encountered with the proposed Surrey transition from the RCMP to a municipal police force.

How many other transitions has the province experienced, and perhaps had some complications with, in transitioning 5,000-and-over communities throughout the province?

[2:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for the question. What we found are a couple of things. Some communities do find challenges as they’re approaching the 5,000 threshold or just going over the 5,000 threshold. This act provides clarity not only for them but also for government in ways forward.

The issue is also cropping up not just here but in other parts of the country as well. That’s one of the reasons why, at the federal level, there is now a commissioner position, officer, whose sole task is dealing with transitions, not just here but in other parts of the country as well.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer. So whose responsibility is it to do the analysis of the information that the minister requires for making a decision under section 3.1(2)(b)? Is it the municipalities? Is it the police board? Is it the police services branch themselves? Whose shoulders does that fall under, at the end of the day?

Hon. M. Farnworth: It would be the local government coming up with what they want to do and working with the director of police services, who would look at it.

M. Morris: I appreciate that.

Turning now to subsection 3.1(3), it states that the municipalities, the police boards, the municipal police departments and the RCMP must provide information plans or records the minister requires to make a decision under subsection (2).

If the minister receives any information that suggests that an adverse impact to the municipality’s transition is imminent, what steps does the minister take to follow up with that agency or that municipality that provided him with such information?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We would receive the information, obviously, from the local government. It would be analyzed. If shortcomings were identified, you would then give the local government the opportunity to provide the information in terms of dealing with those shortcomings.

M. Morris: Are there any structured timelines for this? Oftentimes it takes a little while to gather up information. The analysis takes time, depending on the level of expertise required to make that analysis. How much time does the minister consider reasonable in responding to complex issues or concerns?

Hon. M. Farnworth: There’s no set structured time. Each case is different, depending on the local government and the circumstances that they find themselves in.

M. Morris: Has the minister…? I guess we only have Surrey as an example to use. It’s the impetus behind this. Has the minister gone back to the municipality for clarification or additional information and that information has not been forthcoming?

Vice versa. Has the municipality come to the police services branch for additional information and, for whatever reason, that information has not exchanged hands?

[2:50 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I pointed out a moment ago, we would receive information. We would point out if there were deficiencies and then expect those deficiencies to be addressed.

I think that one of the critical issues, why this clause is here in terms of legislation, is that the minister should not have to sign a non-disclosure agreement. It was that experience that resulted in the creation of this particular section, which is to be able to get all the information that is required that you have questions about. That really is why this is here.

M. Morris: I appreciate that, and I’ve got my thoughts on non-disclosure agreements.

I’m just curious, though. Has the minister required any non-disclosure acknowledgment on the information that he has released to the municipalities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The answer would be yes. When I receive, let’s say, confidential information from the RCMP, I cannot release that information without their permission. So that kind of information, for example, would be redacted. It’s not my information to release. That confidential information is the RCMP’s, or, in fact, it would be any police agency’s.

M. Morris: Would that same rationale not apply to municipalities?

Hon. M. Farnworth: No, because what they’re doing is providing information for me to be able to make a decision, and it would not be confidential police information.

M. Morris: I certainly understand that. I guess, from a municipality’s perspective, they also are required to make decisions as to what they’re going to do and how they’re going to make that particular transition. So I won’t belabour the point. I do see some parallels in arguments be­tween the province and the municipalities as well.

In addition to determining adequate and effective police resources, does the minister also include the numbers of unsworn civilians providing clerical and other support for sworn officers in the department?

[2:55 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: As I said a moment ago, we take a broad range of considerations. It depends on each particular case. Every circumstance is different.

M. Morris: I’m certainly aware of that. When I look at a transition from an RCMP–based service to an independent municipal police force, when I look at the resources the RCMP would have available — for an example, with CFSEU, with the division administrative services, with the forensic identification, with our lab services or with the RCMP lab services — there are a number of resources embedded within those different agencies. I know that there are police forces that are combined units throughout the Lower Mainland, but is that taken into consideration as well?

The RCMP is a national police force that has access to untold number of resources and expertise in just about any field you want. There needs to be a balance there. Is that taken into consideration, as well, by the ministry?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Again, I’ll reiterate that, as I said, there’s a wide range of considerations taken into account in terms of a transition.

I’d also make the point that whether it’s RCMP or independent municipal police forces, they all do amazing work and have access to resources. As the member is well aware, there’s a lot of integration that takes place — IHIT, for example, being one that comes at top of mind; CFSEU; all of those things. Whether it’s RCMP or municipal, I think everybody wants to ensure that as much cooperation is taking place as possible.

M. Morris: I appreciate the answer. In circumstances where clarity is needed with information, does the minister or has the minister met personally with the heads of the provincial police force, the municipal chiefs involved or the municipalities involved to clarify any of those concerns before they go off the rails?

[3:00 p.m.]

The committee recessed from 3:02 p.m. to 3:19 p.m.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We’ll call the committee back to order.

Hon. M. Farnworth: Under the act, there would be the formal notification taking place by way of letter. But obviously, as practice, you would of course meet with the parties who are engaged in a transition, for example.

[3:20 p.m.]

M. Morris: When I look at the issue with Surrey…. There are probably other examples out there. I look at the Community Charter and the provision under…. I believe it’s section 2 of the charter, where it says the provincial government and municipalities should attempt to resolve conflicts between them by consultation, negotiation, facilitation and other forms of dispute resolution.

I’m just wondering if the minister wants to or is able to comment on the steps that he has taken to follow the advice provided in the Community Charter and the issue that has led to this particular bill.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I have really said what I am able to say in terms of the Surrey situation. What I can tell you is….

Look, this is the act, and this is how we intend to move forward with it.

M. Morris: I appreciate that.

What happens if, once the minister has made a determination under subsection (4), new information comes to light, by any of the entities required to report under subsection (3), that fundamentally changes the proposal and addresses the concerns the minister had with respect to the adverse impacts or, conversely, identifies new adverse impacts to the entities identified under subsection (3)?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If I had said no to a proposal and then, under this act, let’s say, they came up with new information, then they could submit a new proposal.

M. Morris: Am I understanding they could submit a revised proposal? Is that what I’m hearing?

[3:25 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. I think it’s fair to say that given you’re wanting to make a transition…. That’s a pretty serious thing that you want to do, and there would have been thorough analysis of that and all the different factors that go into that.

Then to come back and say, “Oh, we’ve got some new information….” It would have to be really significant and substantive information to say, “Hey, look at this again,” once a decision has been made. You could come back and ask, but that would be very, very challenging.

M. Morris: I don’t see anything in the act that would allow that. Is it assumed that this opportunity would exist?

Once the minister has made the order under this particular legislation…. He has directed the director of police services to superintend that transition. If this substantial information comes up that could change the outcome of the direction, is there existing legislation that would allow that to take place?

I can’t see anything in there where the minister can rescind his decision under that particular subsection.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think it would be fair to say, given the importance of the decision, the rigour that goes into the analysis…. The reality is, in practice, that once a decision is made, the decision is made.

M. Morris: That leads me to my next question.

Subsection (4), in addition to section 3.2, in my view, is the hammer in this amendment that gives the minister and the director of police services, basically, an arbitrary power over the municipality.

I look at section 3 of the Community Charter. It outlines that the purpose of the charter is to provide municipalities with the “legal framework for the powers, duties and functions that are necessary to fulfil their purposes,” provide “the authority and discretion to address existing and future community needs” and provide “the flexibility to determine the public interest of their communities and to respond to the different needs and changing circumstances of their communities.”

I see this is a little bit…. It’s not in harmony with that, in my humble opinion.

Under section 2 of the charter: “The relationship be­tween municipalities and the Provincial government is based on the following principles: (a) the Provincial government respects municipal authority and municipalities respect Provincial authority” — it’s a two-way street; “(b) the Provincial government must not assign responsibilities to municipalities unless there is provision for resources required to fulfill the responsibilities.”

[3:30 p.m.]

I throw that out there because a lot of times these decisions and, perhaps, these orders will end up costing the municipalities significantly more in dollars and, perhaps, resources, as well, to fulfil those obligations.

Is the minister at all concerned? Has he received advice that there is no conflict with the Community Charter with respect to the hammer sections of subsection (4) and section 3.2?

Hon. M. Farnworth: When it comes to policing, local government is governed by the Police Act and not by the Community Charter.

M. Morris: I appreciate the Police Act does apply. Under the Police Act, the municipality has the option to choose whether they go with a municipal police force or opt to employ the provincial police force under contract, which many of them do. There are 31 RCMP municipal contracts over 15,000 population that use that. That is an authority that exists within the Police Act that allows them to do that.

So by an arbitrary order coming from the minister, and I understand he takes into consideration the adequacy and effectiveness of the service delivered, is it usurping some of the some of the authority by invoking this particular amendment?

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Is it usurping some of the authority of a municipality to provide the services that they feel are best for their community?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This section really is for municipalities who are just crossing that threshold over the 5,000. The other point I’d like to make is that it would not be an arbitrary decision. There would be a lot of rigour applied to analysis and to any use of this section.

[3:35 p.m.]

M. Morris: No, I appreciate that. Circumstances change with municipalities.

Under the Charter, under section 2(2)(c), it says, “consultation is needed on matters of mutual interest, including consultation by the Provincial government on proposed changes to local government legislation” and “proposed changes to Provincial programs that will have a significant impact in relation to matters that are within municipal authority.”

I’m just wondering what consultation has taken place with the mayor and council of Surrey with respect to the powers that are being imposed under subsections (4) and 3.2 of the amendments here.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I think I answered that question earlier on with my remarks that I made around Surrey.

M. Morris: I will review that.

Those are all the questions I have on clause 2.

Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive approved.

On clause 5.

M. Morris: I’m just curious why the minister chose to remove the reference to section 15, which outlines the duty of a municipality to provide policing under this new amendment.

Hon. M. Farnworth: It was an unnecessary reference that was removed during housekeeping drafting of the legislation.

M. Morris: An unnecessary reference as a housekeeping measure. So is it…? I know section…. I don’t have it right in front of me here. Why has the minister determined that it’s an unnecessary reference to the duties and responsibilities of a municipality in providing police services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: Because that continues to be addressed in section 15 of the Police Act.

M. Morris: That’s all the questions I have on clause 5.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

M. Morris: Under section 39, the director of policing already has the authority to superintend policing. This probably does clarify that the director of policing is charged with carrying out the minister’s orders, but what is the process to be followed by a municipality if they disagree with the direction being imposed by the director of police services?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would bring it to my attention as minister.

[3:40 p.m.]

M. Morris: Then what? What transpires after that? Is there formal discussion? Is there a hearing? What takes place after that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: They would bring it to my attention. Then I would go back to the director of police services and discuss it with the director of police services. Then there would be the ability, particularly in certain circumstances, where I could say that on that particular piece, I could overrule the director of police services.

M. Morris: Can individual decisions made by the director of police services — in superintending the transition, or whatever role that he might be performing at the time — be subject to judicial review as well?

Hon. M. Farnworth: This is not a decision. This is direction on how to implement; it’s not a decision. That would be the response I would give to the member’s question.

M. Morris: So it’s a direction. What if the municipality disagrees with the direction? The minister says it’s not a decision; it’s a direction. I’m just looking for the process. If the municipality disagrees, then the same thing could apply to the police board or the provincial police force. It’s the same thing.

If the director of police services, in superintending, pro­vides direction to any of these entities that have been mentioned in these amendments, what recourse do they have if they don’t agree with the direction provided by the director of police services?

[3:45 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: It has to be a statutory decision for it to be the subject of a judicial review, and a direction is not that.

M. Morris: If the statutory provision is provided by the order that this act provides, where the minister can make an order, and the director of police services, in his role as superintending that order, provides direction, would that actually fall under the order as a statutory order? Would that be reviewable?

Hon. M. Farnworth: If the member could clarify how the question he’s asking is relevant to clause 6, that would be of some assistance.

M. Morris: Under clause 6, the director is given the role of superintending the orders that the minister, under the previous sections that we’ve talked about, imposes upon municipalities for the transition. In enforcing those orders of the minister, the superintendent provides direction to any of those entities that were mentioned under that particular clause.

If those entities disagree with a specific order or a specific direction within that order, I’m looking for what recourse they have. If it can’t be resolved in discussion with the director and the minister, would that order be reviewable as a JR under the statutory order of the minister?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The short answer is that it’s a direction; it’s not an order. As a result, it’s not JR-able.

M. Morris: That concludes my questions for clause 6.

Clause 6 approved.

On clause 7.

M. Morris: This clause is directly related to Surrey. With respect to subsection (2), it states, “Despite the Police Act, the City of Surrey must provide policing and law enforcement by the means referred to in section 3 (2) (a) of that Act.” It’s the order that the city of Surrey must provide a municipal police service despite the Police Act.

I have to wrap my head around this. The Police Act pro­vides authority for the municipality to choose what type of police service they have. This particular clause removes any other aspect of the Police Act with respect to providing a police service.

[3:50 p.m.]

They must focus, then, on section 3(2)(a) of the act only. They don’t have any other choice. Is that the way I’m reading that?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The reason it says “despite” is because this is a transitional provision that will never be in the Police Act.

M. Morris: So with respect to this particular transition, Surrey no longer has the option to look at any other means of policing other than what the minister has ordered for the service under section 3(2)(a) of the act.

Hon. M. Farnworth: That is correct.

M. Morris: It states under sub (3) that the city of Surrey is required to provide policing and law enforcement referred to in subsection (2), and that model is “deemed to have been approved by the minister.” Considering the fact that these amendments could be in conflict with the Community Charter, and the fact that Surrey is exercising its right to judicial review, the term “deemed” is speculative at best, I think.

Does the minister intend on pushing this forward without benefit of clear direction from the judicial review process itself?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I believe I answered that in my opening comments to our discussion today.

M. Morris: Possibly. These transition provisions are directly focused on Surrey. I know that there’s a judicial review taking place here. I guess the JR is going to provide the clarity that we’re looking for under this particular process here.

For certainty, as this committee discussion has shown, in my estimation, the minister has not adequately identified the public safety risks that he claims are driving this aggressive approach to forcing a municipal policing model on Surrey. The municipality of Surrey has met its duties and responsibilities under section 15(1), and this is supported by years of statistical data indicating that Surrey is a safe community with, actually, one of the lowest crime rates in the province here.

I guess I’ll ask one more time what additional rationale the minister is relying upon that has driven him to implement such an arbitrary measure against Surrey. I think the citizens of Surrey need to know why the minister feels that public safety under the current model is significantly at risk for the citizens of Surrey.

The RCMP is a national police force. If they have pro­vided the minister with information…. I understand that whatever the RCMP provides the minister is confidential between the minister and the RCMP. But I listened to the commissioner of the RCMP, when he was out here on a recent visit to British Columbia, talk about, in a very calm manner, the future of the RCMP in British Columbia and the RCMP across the country.

I’ve had discussions with senior RCMP leadership in the province that indicate that the transition to maintain the RCMP and the resources necessary are no hurdles for the RCMP to meet. So I’ve received conflicting information. Perhaps the JR is the only way that we’ll find exactly what that information is and what the final outcome will be.

[3:55 p.m.]

Would the minister be willing to comment on the information that he’s received that has led to this arbitrary direction that he’s imposed?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the member’s question. I appreciate his remarks.

I will make two points. First, the decision is in no way, shape or form arbitrary. There’s a lot of work, analysis by professionals within my ministry on this. A significant amount of work has gone into this, so I would reject the use of the term “arbitrary.”

That being said, I would also outline that I have said what I can say in terms of Surrey at the beginning of my comments. I think I outlined them there for the member, and that’s all I will say at this point.

M. Morris: I appreciate that, and I do understand the position that the minister is in here, so with respect, I’ve been asking these questions. With respect to section 8 under this clause, what credentials does the administrator need in order to be appointed? This is the administrator to take over the function of the police board.

The Chair: We were still on clause 7. We need to pass that first before we can move on to the next one, if that’s okay. I go back to the member for Prince George–Mackenzie.

M. Morris: Yes, we can transition into 8, so you can call the vote on 7.

Clause 7 approved.

On clause 8.

The Chair: Please go ahead, Member.

M. Morris: I appreciate that, Chair. My notes were a little confused with clause 8 on that.

The same question follows. What credentials does the administrator need in order to be appointed to replace the board?

The Chair: I think at this point the minister is going to table the amendment and then maybe we…. Does the minister want to move the amendment before getting…?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move in Committee of the Whole on Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, to amend as follows:

[CLAUSE 8, by deleting the proposed clause 8 (5).]

The Chair: Thank you. Now we’re moving to questions on the amended clause 8, just to be clear for all those following, on the proposed amended clause 8 at this point.

Are there any questions on the proposed amendment?

Amendment approved.

On clause 8 as amended.

M. Morris: My question still stands under clause 8, the first one.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I’d be looking for someone who has experience working with multiple levels of government, experiencing, administrating and managing change within large corporations or government bodies.

M. Morris: Can the minister advise if…? Once the board is suspended and an administrator is appointed, what will happen to all the part 11 oversight and complaints currently before or pending to come before the board?

[4:00 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: The part 11 processes will continue, and the administrator would assume the functions of the board.

E. Sturko: When the Surrey police board was formed, a great deal of consideration went into Indigenous representation on the board. If the board is dissolved, how will that Indigenous representation be taken into consideration?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The board would not be dissolved. It would just be suspended. When the administrator is no longer required, then any existing appointments would continue being appointed on the board.

E. Sturko: During the interim of time, when the person who is appointed, the administrator, is taking over the role of guiding the police transition, the Indigenous representation from the board will not be doing their role, if I’m understanding correctly. How will that consideration on behalf of the Indigenous community be taken into account by the administrator?

Hon. M. Farnworth: I appreciate the question. The administrator would have the ability to access Indigenous input or any information while they are the administrator from the nation that is, part and parcel, being policed by, in this case…. At this point, the RCMP would be able to access through their role as the administrator.

E. Sturko: A big component of creating new laws in B.C. is that there’s consultation with Indigenous nations so that we can ensure that we’re compliant with the UN declaration on the rights of Indigenous people.

Can you explain, particularly with dealing with this po­licing transition…? Can you please go through some of the consultation that was done? What were the First Nations that were consulted with?

Hon. M. Farnworth: These amendments are focused on how municipalities provide police services. Treaty and reserve lands do not form part of the municipality. We did, however, consult with the First Nations Leadership Council, and no concerns were identified.

E. Sturko: Surrey, B.C. actually represents one of the largest urban Indigenous populations in Canada. We’re very proud of our multiculturalism, of the diversity. So it’s not only with regard to policing that would take place, for example, on the Semiahmoo First Nation, but First Nations individuals who would be impacted by the policing transition, policing change and the change away from, for example, the RCMP to a municipal force.

[4:05 p.m.]

What type of consultation with overall nations who are represented in the population of Surrey was done in order to ensure that this transition and this new legislation that will become law is compliant with UNDRIP?

Hon. M. Farnworth: We’re confident that we met our obligations under DRIPA. We did, as I said, consult with the First Nations Leadership Council, and no concerns were identified.

M. Morris: We’ve only got a couple of questions left.

Who does the administrator report to?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrator becomes the police board. They have that relationship with the Surrey police service. They have that relationship with the director of police services.

M. Morris: That includes…? The relationship with the mayor will remain the same, and the relationship…. We have a relationship with the mayor, and the police board is responsible for the municipal policing service. Does the administrator have any responsibilities in reporting to the RCMP, the current police force of jurisdiction?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrator becomes the police board, and then they would be required to follow all their obligations that are set out under the Police Act.

M. Morris: I appreciate that. Is there any requirement for the administrator to interact with the RCMP, and what level of the RCMP would the administrator interact with?

Hon. M. Farnworth: The administrator would be working, would have…. Obviously, it becomes the police board, but they would be working closely with the director of po­lice services, who also works with the RCMP. So, yes, there would be, obviously, engagement and working cooperatively with the administrator, the director of police services and the RCMP.

M. Morris: One final question on this clause. Can the minister tell the House how long he expects this transition period to last?

[4:10 p.m.]

Hon. M. Farnworth: At this point, no decision has been made as to whether or not an administrator will be appointed.

M. Morris: That concludes my questions for this clause.

Clause 8 as amended approved.

Clause 9 approved.

Title approved.

Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

The Chair: Division has been called.

[4:15 p.m. - 4:25 p.m.]

The Chair: The question is whether the committee on Bill 36 rise and report the bill complete with amendment.

Motion approved on the following division:

YEAS — 52
Alexis	Babchuk	Bailey
Bains	Beare	Begg
Brar	Chant	Chen
Chow	Conroy	Coulter
Cullen	Dean	D’Eith
Dix	Donnelly	Dykeman
Eby	Elmore	Farnworth
Fleming	Furstenau	Glumac
Greene	Heyman	Kang
Leonard	Lore	Ma
Malcolmson	Olsen	Osborne
Paddon	Parmar	Phillip
Popham	Ralston	Rankin
Robinson	Routledge	Routley
Russell	Sharma	Simons
Sims	A. Singh	R. Singh
Starchuk	Walker	Whiteside
	Yao
NAYS — 22
Banman	Bernier	Bond
Clovechok	de Jong	Doerkson
Halford	Kirkpatrick	Kyllo
Letnick	Merrifield	Milobar
Morris	Oakes	Paton
Ross	Shypitka	Stewart
Stone	Sturdy	Sturko
	Tegart

The committee rose at 4:26 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Reporting of Bills

BILL 36 — POLICE AMENDMENT ACT, 2023

Bill 36, Police Amendment Act, 2023, reported complete with amendment, to be considered at the next sitting of the House after today.

Hon. L. Beare: I call second reading of Bill 34, the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — RESTRICTING PUBLIC
CONSUMPTION OF
ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES ACT

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

It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 34, the Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

The toxic drug crisis continues to claim lives at an unprecedented rate, and far too many people are at risk of a fatal overdose. Our government is committed to saving lives and connecting people who are struggling with drug addiction to the care they need.

On the 31st of January of this year, the province and the federal government agreed to decriminalize the possession of small amounts of certain illicit drugs for personal use.

We know that drug addiction is a health matter and that people who use drugs deserve to be treated with compassion and empathy. As such, our government has invested a historic $1 billion in Budget 2023 to support ongoing enhancements to prevention, treatment and recovery and harm reduction services.

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

At the same time, we have heard from local governments, police and British Columbians that they are concerned about public drug use.

The decriminalization effort is intended to reduce the stigma associated with drug use and remove barriers for people to seek help and supports that they need to address addiction issues.

[4:30 p.m.]

It is not meant to suggest that decriminalized drugs can be used anywhere, especially in areas that are frequently used by children and families, as well as places that people use to get around their community. British Columbians want to feel safe in their neighbourhoods and enjoy public and recreational spaces free from drug use.

The Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act establishes this balance by setting out clear rules around where people cannot use decriminalized drugs in public. This legislation treats the consumption of decriminalized drugs similar to the way we regulate the use of other substances such as tobacco, alcohol and cannabis, which makes it easy for everyone to understand.

Under this bill, a person must not use decriminalized drugs within 15 metres of a playground, spray or wading pool or a skate park; at a park, beach or sports field; or within six metres of an entrance to a workplace or to a business or residential building that is adjacent to a public place such as a sidewalk; and within six metres of a public transit bus stop.

Our government also acknowledges that many people who use drugs in public are unhoused or experience other vulnerabilities, which is why we are proposing a progressive enforcement approach.

When a police officer responds to a person who is using decriminalized drugs in one of these places, they can direct the person to stop using, to leave the area or both. In the vast majority of cases, we expect that most people will choose to relocate to a place where drug use is allowed, such as an overdose prevention site or supervised consumption site, where they can use their drugs more safely and be connected to critical services and supports.

Under this legislation, an offence will only occur if the person refuses the direction from a police officer to stop using their drugs and/or leave the area. When this happens, police will have the authority to arrest the person, seize their drugs and advance charges.

Ultimately, the goal of this legislation is to achieve voluntary compliance rather than taking punitive enforcement actions against people who use drugs in public. We want people who use drugs to be redirected to safer places such as overdose prevention sites and to treatment services where they can get the services and the supports that they need to stay alive.

Through this legislation, our government also intends to reduce the patchwork approach to addressing public drug use at the local government level. Through extensive consultation with local governments, we are confident this bill addresses the main areas of concern for British Columbians and will create a consistent approach across B.C.

We also recognize some local governments may have legitimate reasons to address other specific public drug use considerations that are unique to their community. The Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act will require local governments to consult with their regional health authority and local medical health officer before considering any bylaws that restrict public use of decriminalized substances.

Taken as a whole, this legislation aims to establish a consistent set of provincewide standards around public drug use and provide police with the tools to help redirect people who are using drugs in inappropriate areas to better and safer places such as overdose prevention sites or to treatment support resources.

E. Sturko: I rise today to Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act.

I’d like to begin, if I may, by taking a few moments to review the concept and legal framework of the decriminalization pilot in British Columbia. This is going to be relevant to speaking to this bill, as I lay out the shortcomings of this legislation.

Health Canada granted an exemption under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act to the province of B.C., effective January 31, 2023, to January 31 of 2026. Now, this exemption means that adults, 18 years and older, in B.C. are not arrested or charged for possessing 2.5 grams or less of certain illegal drugs for personal use. The illegal drugs covered by this exemption are opioids such as heroin, morphine and fentanyl, crack and powder cocaine, meth­amphetamine and MDMA.

[4:35 p.m.]

Adults found in possession of any combination of these illegal drugs that adds up to a combined total of 2.5 grams or less are not subject to arrest, criminal charges, and the drugs are not seized. Instead of arrest or seizure for their illicit drugs, it’s intended for individuals to be offered information about health and social services. This includes support with making a referral to a local treatment or recovery service, if requested.

Legally, people in possession of 2.5 grams of drugs for personal use are immune to prosecution under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. On January 31, 2023, under the original decriminalization agreement, several locations were not exempt from criminal investigation and continued to exist as locations where police could exercise their full discretion. K-to-12 school properties, licensed child care facilities and airports were among places that were included. Parks, playgrounds, doorways, wading pools, skate parks, transit stops were all, of course, consid­ered fair game for the consumption of illicit drugs.

Problems in communities began almost immediately following the launch of the decriminalization pilot, with business owners who began to note problems with street disorder, public intoxication, increased incidents of public defecation, drug paraphernalia being left in the vicinity of their doorways. The impact of reducing the criminal liability for public drug use had an immediate result on the emboldening of drug use in public spaces.

The government failed to anticipate the consequences of decriminalization on the rest of the community, people who are not engaged in drug use, people who are sympathetic to the plight of those suffering from addiction, but people who now find themselves struggling to keep businesses open, struggling to keep staff, in the face of ever-increasing violent behaviours, struggling to pay for vandalism and damages often perpetrated by those who are publicly intoxicated, or even more seriously, in drug-induced psychosis.

Parents were afraid to take their children to the park for fear of encountering someone in psychosis or of having their child pricked with needles or poisoned by drug residue left in play areas. Need I remind you of the five-year-old girl from Nanaimo who brought home a tiny bag of fentanyl that she picked up from her elementary school playground. This happened in April. It happened regardless of no exemption existing in K-to-12 school grounds.

More recently, on October 5, Mihai Ionescu said he was recently at the École Pauline Johnson field in West Vancouver with his daughter for a soccer game. When he went to go get some water at the fountain, he noticed several needles scattered on the ground near the school. This came after the expansion of decriminalization limits on September 18. So now we have parents who feel they must call on school districts to carry out programs and carry naloxone in fear that their children will be poisoned by toxic drugs while they’re out playing on the playground.

In the 2020 election, the NDP vowed to fast-track decriminalization. Now, three years later we can see the results of rushing. We see evidence not only in the lack of consideration for overall public safety, but we see it in the lack of urgency that this government has in providing services for people who use drugs.

Eight months later, after the horse has already left the barn, this government has finally taken a tiny step toward safety in parks and playgrounds. However, this new legislation does not offer the strongest measures available. It doesn’t provide the strongest deterrents for police and peace officers.

Why is B.C. doing the decriminalization pilot? Well, according to the B.C. government’s own website: “Available evidence suggests that decriminalization can be an effective way to reduce the harms associated with substance use and criminalization.”

It goes on to say: “Decriminalization is not associated with increased rates of substance use. In Portugal, since decriminalization, the rates of substance use and overdose deaths…remain below the European averages.”

Furthermore, it says: “Decriminalization is expected to provide cost savings to the criminal justice system. In Portugal,” it says, “since decriminalization, the proportion of prisoners sentenced for drugs has fallen from 40 percent to 15 percent, and the substantial reduction in arrests and charges alleviates pressures on the criminal justice system.”

[4:40 p.m.]

It sounds, actually, pretty good. But the government goes on to list other jurisdictions where decriminalization has been implemented, including Portugal, Uruguay, Germany, Lithuania, Australia, the Czech Republic and our neighbours the United States.

Here’s the problem. We’re dealing with a government that consistently only tells half the story and consistently only does half the work. They like to cite countries like Portugal, Germany and Uruguay to justify their decriminalization experiment, yet they fail to recognize that in the other countries that they cite, where decriminalization has been somewhat successful, there are strict measures. There are administrative penalties. While a person might not receive a criminal penalty, they’re still held accountable for their actions, and they’re compelled to change their behaviours.

Portugal, Germany and Uruguay — all countries cited by this government — all have means to place people into involuntary treatment. Something that this government refuses to do. Something that they don’t have the political courage to carry out. If a person in these countries is convicted of a criminal act because of drug use, well, then they’re sentenced to involuntary drug treatment.

In Portugal, public drug use remains forbidden. Pharmaceutical alternatives to illicit drugs — what this government likes to call safe supply — are only available under supervision and as part of a transition to treatment.

No wonder decriminalization is failing here, on all fronts in British Columbia, while having success in other corners of the world. This government has failed to put in the measures required for success.

Prior to seeing Bill 34, I had a faint hope that this legislation would actually have some form of administrative measures, a means to compel people, to direct a person to visit services or to attend a face-to-face meeting with a drug counsellor. But it doesn’t.

That’s what they do in Portugal. If you get caught using drugs in public, you can receive an administrative penalty, which compels you to go to dissuasion court. If you fail to change your behaviour, you can be compelled to go into services to provide treatment and aftercare.

This is a missed opportunity in Bill 34. None of that was done. In fact, this government loves to talk about the fact that it’s decriminalization and not legalization. But without any regulation, it is legalization. You can do drugs just about anywhere. This new bill has you not even being arrested for drug use in a place that’s forbidden.

I mean, have mercy. If someone should take the leadership to have an administrative process, to actually compel people into services…. It’s probably, though, when I think about it…. The reason they don’t want to compel people into services is because they haven’t created adequate services for people to access help, even if they want it.

Bill 34 doesn’t, within itself, contain any administrative penalties. It defaults to the Offence Act of B.C., where, upon conviction, a person could be fined a maximum of $2,000, sentenced to six months in jail. So if you don’t listen to the police officer and stop doing drugs or move on, like the Solicitor General mentioned in his remarks…. Well, a person could be charged under the Offence Act.

We know that it’s unlikely that a street-entrenched person or one who uses drugs and is unhoused would likely have the resources to pay a fine, and it would be highly unlikely for a conviction under the Offence Act to result in a custodial sentence. So why not have used Bill 34 to create regulatory processes, maybe a new form of compelling people to a face-to-face meeting to discuss options?

We know that in terms of educating people on what’s available here in B.C.… That’s one pillar that’s like a withering plant that hasn’t received much water in this province, but perhaps a face-to-face meeting would help someone understand the services that might be available to them.

[4:45 p.m.]

Instead of Bill 34 being an opportunity to help people transition into wellness, it just remains, purely, a tool to push drug users from one area to the next. I’ll give you another example of how Bill 34, if the government was truly following the path of decriminalization taken by Portugal and Germany and all these other countries cited on the government’s own website….

Here’s the example. This is a name that will be familiar to anyone who follows the proceedings of the B.C. Legislature. His name is Mohammed Majidpour. It’s a name we’re too familiar with here, I would argue, in the Legislature.

Despite his probation requirements, which request that he stay away from illicit opioids and substances, his bouts of drug-induced psychosis continue. After citing a psychiatric assessment, a judge found that Mr. Majidpour was very likely to reoffend in a violent manner if his substance use and housing issues were not addressed. He refuses to attend treatment, leaving the safety of British Columbians questionable, as he is released time and again.

The current legislation we have in B.C. can’t compel Mr. Majidpour to go into treatment, even though he is recommended to do so, even though the safety of other people in our community is at risk through his continued drug use. Treatment would likely help improve his well-being and reduce the chances of subsequent criminal offences. If this was truly a Portugal model — an example of Portugal, Australia, Lithuania and those other countries — then Bill 34 would provide an opportunity to compel those who continue to place others at risk through their drug use into programs and services.

As I mentioned earlier, many of these countries will sentence a person to treatment options. These countries are noted by the government as being successful examples of decriminalization. Instead, we have a bill before us that does more of the same, allowing people to consume substances in public spaces without access to treatment and other social services and putting the public in harm’s way of drug paraphernalia.

Section 4 of Bill 34 speaks to how police are expected to deal with persons who are consuming drugs in parks and playgrounds or in doorways. It stipulates that the course of action for officers is to ask a person to stop using, leave the area or both. Only if the person refuses to do so can the police make an arrest without warrant.

This, again, is a missed opportunity. Police can’t arrest or detain for investigation, and they’re not provided an opportunity to identify a person who might be reported as missing. Maybe they have an outstanding court process. Maybe they have warrants for their arrest. Now those won’t be processed. Additionally, it also removes an opportunity for police to seize dangerous weapons. It’s often during safety searches where police locate hidden weapons, guns, machetes, bear spray, knives, axes. You name it; they find it.

Since the beginning of decriminalization, we saw several municipalities struggling with the consequences of emboldened public drug use. Campbell River was one of the first to be forced to create a municipal bylaw prohibiting drug consumption within 15 metres of public spaces where children and families gather.

Mayor Kermit Dahl said the bylaw is intended to im­prove safety for people downtown, where there have been multiple stabbings. In July, before the bylaw came into force, a 21-year-old father was stabbed twice in the chest coming to help someone, an unconscious person who he went to assist after hearing cries for help.

Mayor Dahl told the media that he hoped enforcement of the bylaw encouraged people to congregate at an overdose prevention site rather than in parks and other public places. He says: “If they’re using at a place that is set up to be used for doing all these illicit drugs, rather than a place where young children are likely to be…. I think that, right in itself, explains how it affects safety.” This makes sense. Direct people to where they can use illicit drugs under supervision.

[4:50 p.m.]

Kamloops council approved a sweeping ban on illicit drug use in public spaces. They prohibited the use and even display of a controlled substance on any sidewalk or within 100 metres of a designated area. A designated area is defined as public parks, playgrounds, urban forests, beaches, pools, community and recreation centres, public libraries, art galleries, arenas and exhibition buildings.

Exempt from the bylaw is the use of drugs at supervised drug use and overdose prevention locations and facilities operated by or on behalf of Interior Health, B.C. Housing or any other government authority, regardless of how close they are to any of the designated areas. Makes sense. Allow people to use in locations and facilities where they can get help.

On September 5, 2023, Nelson passed a bylaw prohibiting public drug use in areas most used by children on a regular basis for recreation and other leisure activities: “The use of illicit drugs in parks is likely to interfere with the public’s use and enjoyment of parks and, in particular, is likely to disrupt recreational and other leisure activities, disturb the peace, comfort and enjoyment of people using the park in their leisure time and result in unsettling behaviour, which causes some members of the public to leave or avoid the park.”

You know what? Nelson has an overdose prevention site. So again, community-made restrictions, and it has a place for people to go and be safe and receive services. But unfortunately, it’s not the case everywhere. It’s not the case everywhere in B.C., and it’s one of the biggest failures of decriminalization. It is, in fact, where the NDP has demonstrably failed to meet the letter of requirement in the Health Canada exemption.

I’m going to quote the letter, where Health Canada outlines the requirements as follows: “This letter lays out details further to the commitments made by the province to support the successful implementation of the exemption, specifically in the areas of (1) alternative measures; (2) meaningful and ongoing engagement with partners and stakeholders; (3) Indigenous engagement; (4)” — this is the one — “readiness and capacity of the health and social systems.”

I will say it again: “readiness and capacity of the health and social systems.” So would that be maybe supervised consumption sites in every location in British Columbia, where people could go to be safe, particularly now that people can possess, carry and use drugs without penalty or even without any regulatory means of compelling them into services? Would that not have been something that I would think would fit the definition of “readiness and capacity of the health and social systems”?

There’s not a supervised consumption site in every B.C. community. People have no place to go. The creation of Bill 34 has now created a situation where there’s no legal mechanism to compel people into treatment services. That’s what they do. That’s exactly what they do in Portugal. Police have to now operate under the expectation that they just move people on. Move people on who have no place to go — people who use drugs.

In most municipalities in B.C., they don’t have a safe place to go. This government has failed the requirement (4) readiness and capacity of health and social systems, and they’ve been promising to implement — I would say fast-track — decriminalization since 2020. That’s three years now that they’ve had to ensure that the province was ready to come up with actual services and legislation and regulations to actually help people who use drugs and save their lives and keep communities safe.

At UBCM, I had the pleasure to talk with several city councillors and mayors from every corner of the province, including communities where the NDP currently holds seats. What I’ve heard time and again is that they need help ensuring residents are safe.

They didn’t ask for decriminalization. It was thrust upon them with little information or resources, and now they’re scrambling. They’ve told me that they feel entirely abandoned by this government to deal with decriminalization. There’s rampant street disorder and complex health issues that they often feel involve concurrent addiction and mental health issues. They feel let down.

[4:55 p.m.]

Let down like in Kelowna, which has been let down, for example. Promised 20 complex care beds, and four of 20 are open. We’re talking about a community that has probably close to a kilometre of unhoused people dealing with complex mental health and addictions issues, and they’ve got four beds out of 20. This is unacceptable.

It’s like this across the province. It’s a $1 billion promise made for mental health and addictions, and results are scarce to see. Seven years and two elections later, we’re on track to reach a new overdose record in British Columbia. It’s painful to say that. It’s frustrating to stand here as a member of the opposition and see and hear myself say out loud that we’re dealing with a government that sells decriminalization to the public like it’s following a recipe book, a playbook from other European countries, and it’s not.

Maybe in title alone. Maybe even in the name “decriminalization,” but it’s a pie with no filling. There’s nothing there. There are no services. There’s no way to compel people like they do in the other countries that have been successful with decriminalization. Where are the regulations to get people in front of a counsellor or a dissuasion committee? It’s a crucial part of the recipe that’s missing.

I’m very disappointed to see what a wasted opportunity this bill is. I do hope that maybe some amendments can be made. Maybe some further consideration into the importance of being able to use these opportunities with law enforcement and other peace officers to find ways of helping guide people towards the help they need. But at this point, I don’t feel that hopeful about it.

I’ll read one more quote from the government’s website, if I may, because it really stood out for me, particularly today, where we’ve been having a lot of discussions about the opioid crisis and about how we continue to lose six people a day in this province, hearing about a young 13-year-old girl that lost her life to drug toxicity.

The quote is: “Decriminalization is not legalization. Under this exemption, illegal drugs are not legalized and will not be sold in stores. Unless otherwise authorized, drug production, trafficking, import and export remain illegal regardless of the type or amount of drug(s) in possession.”

Why this stood out for me so profoundly is that drug trafficking remains illegal, yet this government supported organizations as part of its strategy in the opioid crisis. Two organizations that have been involved in purchasing drugs — one from the dark web and the other…. I’m not sure where they got their drugs, but it wasn’t because they had a licence from Health Canada. I’m talking about the Drug Users Liberation Front and the Vancouver Area Network of Drug Users. Both, in media, talk about how they have trafficked illicit drugs, and this government funded them $1.2 million between the two organizations.

How does this relate to Bill 34? Well, how can we trust a government to implement laws regarding the decriminalization of drugs, regarding drugs at all, when they partner with people who purchase illicit drugs from gangs and cartels, from the dark web, from people that put money and guns into the hands of people that kill British Columbians every year?

In my home community, gang violence has been a significant problem throughout the years. I can tell you that seeing that $1.2 million of taxpayer money went to support organizations that put money into the hands of gangs and drug traffickers makes me sick. It’s wrong.

It’s time for this government to have a serious look in the mirror about the way that it is handling this entire pilot, because we’re not truly doing decriminalization as laid out in other countries.

[5:00 p.m.]

I’m not even sure that this government knows what it’s doing at all. It’s evidenced by the ever-rising number of toxicity deaths and untreated complex, concurrent mental health and addictions issues of people living and languishing on the streets.

I’m very pleased to have had an opportunity to speak to this legislation. I’m really looking forward to having an opportunity in the committee stage. When we’re dealing with something as serious as around 13,000 people having died in B.C. in the last seven years, it’s time for us to work together to try to change things.

I really hope that the minister, his deputy minister or those that work for him — and the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions and even the Minister of Health — have heard the things that I’ve said and will reflect on the decisions that they made with the decriminalization pilot.

You can’t do half the work and expect the same results. Let’s work together through Bill 34. Let’s implement changes that can compel people into services. If we’re going to have police move people on, let’s have them move onto pathways into recovery, to wellness. People do recover. We have to provide them every opportunity that we can to make sure that they do.

Thank you for this opportunity, hon. Speaker.

P. Milobar: I’m pleased to take my place on the Bill 34 debate around restricting public consumption of illegal substances. I want to touch on a few points, in my comments here today, which we’ve heard across the province over the years — certainly as decrim rolled out here in the spring — and the lack of responsiveness from this government in regard to that.

It is troubling, in a way. When you think back to the spring session as decriminalization was coming into effect, and we as opposition were raising concerns around areas of the letters of requirement from the federal government that we felt hadn’t been met by the government and around the fact that we started hearing from municipalities saying, “Hang on; there’s a big gap here.”

Parks, playgrounds and public spaces aren’t treated the same way under decriminalization as they are with tobacco use, as they are with alcohol, or as they are with schools.

This Bill 34 really started with the municipalities rising up and saying, “We want a provincial standard around this.” The response from the provincial government was, “Well, let’s just wait. Let’s just wait. Let people go and enjoy the parks all throughout the summer. We’ll see what happens. If we need to, we’ll come back and bring legislation in.” As pressure mounted, they eventually said no. They were much more definitive. They were going to be bringing in legislation in the fall.

We, as opposition, said we were willing and able to come back at any time in the summer to reconvene the Legislature, to have a one-bill session and deal with this type of legislation in the immediate time frame, to reduce the confusion out there, for the public and for municipalities, on how they may choose to implement and deal with things like public drug use in public spaces, as Bill 34 is attempting to do.

There was a lot of confusion as to whether you needed provincial sign-off on the bylaws that municipalities were starting to bring forward. Did it need to be a health officer that signed off or not? Did it need to be the provincial government that signed off? If it was a public safety-related bill, then no, you didn’t need it. If it was a health-related bylaw, you would need your local health authorities and health officers to consult and sign off on it.

[5:05 p.m.]

That was a problem, because in my part of the world, in Kamloops, Interior Health was saying, “No, we don’t want any anyone to do anything for at least six months” — very much in line with what the provincial government was saying.

Then you read Bill 34, and clause 2 takes us right back to those days. It says that municipalities, if they would like to do bylaws around public consumption that may exceed what the provincial government is laying out in Bill 34, will be required to be consulting with those same health authorities and public health officers. It doesn’t say that you have to get agreement from them. It doesn’t say whether there’s a veto or not.

That creates a problem of further confusion, moving forward, that people will have around this bill. That’s a problem because, again, when you look at the letters of requirement of what the province was supposed to do in conjunction with decrim, certain areas weren’t met. There’s a crucial piece that wasn’t met — which, I think, is indicative of how this government operates. It’s around results and lack thereof.

This government routinely makes grand statements, gestures and proclamations, changing the titles of ministers and things of that nature, as if that is going to, in and of itself, make this dramatic change to see a better outcome for the public of British Columbia on any given topic.

Why that’s important with the letters of requirement — my colleague speaking before me pointed out the areas where they fell short — and the one that’s always bothered me is that the baseline data that was supposed to be collected over the year leading up to decriminalization was supposed to be collected by this government.

How do you have a pilot project — a three-year study, whatever you want to call this experiment that the three-year approval was for — if you don’t know what your starting measurables are, and if you don’t know what it is that you’re actually trying to track in the here and the now, to be able to look it over every six months, monthly or every year to say: “Is this system working? Is decriminalization working, or is it not?”

You don’t start with a base subset. We were asking the government repeatedly in the spring to provide what those are, to provide even what they feel would be considered a success or a failure of decriminalization. What are we measuring? What are we trying to move the needle on, so to speak? Is it death by overdose? Is it non-fatal overdose numbers? Is it people into treatment? Is it people considered into recovery?

What exactly are we trying to actually accomplish under decriminalization? Is it street disorder; vandalism; petty crime; violent, random crime? What exactly were we going to measure to put up against stats, moving forward, over the next three years?

Then we find out that very little of that was done, if any, in any substantive way. We find that out just recently when the government declares that yet another thing they were supposed to do, which was regular reporting out, won’t be happening. It won’t be happening in a very public and transparent way, and certainly not on the timelines and the frequency that they had originally agreed with.

I’ve said this many times over the years and many times in this chamber over the years as well. When a government — I don’t care what political stripe or what level of government they are, municipal provincial, federal — doesn’t want to talk about what is happening to a program, which they call a signature program, or to have easily accessible data, it’s because it’s failing. Governments seem to have no problem finding a microphone and a podium if they want to tout successes.

[5:10 p.m.]

When you see a government continuing to stall and to refuse to provide even the basic reporting, you know the system is failing. So the cynic in me says Bill 34 is simply a way for them to try to change the channel again, to try to appear to be doing something — because they know there are mounting frustrations in communities and in business districts and worry with parents — without actually doing anything.

I can think of no better example of that than the title Minister of Mental Health and Addictions by this government. I say that about all the ministers of Mental Health and Addictions this government has had to this point.

It was great fanfare that they launched that ministry when they took government. But results are what actually matters, especially in a public health emergency where it’s literally life or death. If we look at the lack of results that ministry has delivered under various ministers, it’s shocking.

Decriminalization is supposed to be the big way forward. Yet, in the seven years, very little has been done on recovery and treatment by this government — of trying to help people that are addicted due to workplace injuries, that don’t want to wind up on the Downtown Eastside but actually can’t access treatment.

Instead of figuring out a way to get them treatment in a timely fashion and in a way that doesn’t cost them money, this government’s answer is to give them drugs — hydromorphone, so-called safe supply. As much as they need. As much as they want.

In fact, I was listening to one of the radio shows the other day. A gentleman from the Lower Mainland phoned in, and he says: “I want physiotherapy.” But it’s $125 a session for him, and the government won’t cover that, but they’ll give him pills. So instead, he gets the prescription filled.

It’s not even just about treatment and recovery in the “treatment and recovery from an addiction” sense. It’s this government’s inability to give people with workplace injuries proper treatment that doesn’t require them to be on opioids.

It’s simply not good enough for this government to, on every single topic, try to now magically blame 20 years ago.

We heard today about the tragic death of that 13-year-old girl, who would have been six years old when this government took office. Her addiction issues and her going down the path with hydromorphone — easy-to-access hydromorphone, government-issued hydromorphone — in her short lifetime, sadly, was created under this government’s watch. That’s what’s happening in real time.

When we launched our Better Is Possible plan, as B.C. United, we were hoping the government would sincerely…. We always get asked in opposition: “What would you do differently? What was your plan? What would you guys do?” Well, we spelled it out very clearly. In fact, it had people and groups that are not normally politically aligned with us in the least standing up and saying: “This is credible. This is real. This is actionable. This is well-thought-out. This would actually be a game-changer.”

The government has taken none of that and ran with it. But they will stand in this chamber and try to have moral superiority over everyone else and say that they know best, even though their seven-year track record would say they don’t — that what they have done has been failing.

That’s the problem with Bill 34. It’s a reactionary piece because this government was so full steam ahead with their ideology on decriminalization. They refused to listen to people about safeguards, about public spaces, about at least trying to make sure our youth and our children know that opioids actually are dangerous. They’re not a safe supply, no matter if it’s pharmaceutical grade or made in a lab in somebody’s basement.

[5:15 p.m.]

That it will addict them. That it will lead them down a very difficult path in life.

You might not catch all of them. You certainly won’t catch all of them with that messaging. But dear lord, have we just got to a point where we don’t even want to try? We’re just conceding that kids will just do it?

What is the downside to having all of that in place as decrim was rolled out? Where are the ramped-up educational pieces that were supposed to be a part of decriminalization? Where is the enhanced access to recovery and treatment?

It’s very clear that ideologically this government just flat out doesn’t agree with that. They’ve had seven years, and they haven’t ramped any of that up.

It’s been a shell game of announcements. You have a Minister of Mental Health and Addictions that, after seven years, basically has enough funding in their ministry for staff and still needs approval from the Minister of Health for any substantive mental health and addictions work to be done. Window dressing.

Past governments — it would have been the equivalent of having a highly trusted parliamentary secretary, not calling it a minister because that’s how much authority they have. They need a totally different minister to actually approve the funding for the programs and the things that they would like to see done within Mental Health and Addictions.

I’m not sure of any other minister that needs that from a fellow minister that’s supposed to be on an equal footing, other than perhaps the Finance Minister, obviously, ap­proving budgets.

Window dressing, hollow announcements, all while we’re losing six people a day and climbing, year after year. The best answer this government can muster is Bill 34 as a knee-jerk reaction after the fact, after making municipalities do all the heavy lifting to even get them here.

Let’s make no mistake about it. This is not a piece of legislation that the government wanted to bring forward. They tried everything in their power not to bring this forward, so they’ve made it as convoluted and as difficult moving forward for municipalities as they can.

What people need in our communities is to know that the government is not going out of their way to go out and get more people hooked on opioids.

The Premier today was talking about suing the opioid companies for the opioid crisis in the first place. I can understand that. Who exactly does the Premier think is making hydromorphone?

At the same time as the Premier is standing in this House, talking tough about suing big pharma for what they did with opioids and people with working injuries and sports injuries getting hooked on opioids, who exactly does he think manufactures hydromorphone for their so-called safe supply program under decriminalization?

What exactly does he think hydromorphone is made from? Does he honestly think that there are other opioids that aren’t addictive? Because that was kind of the sales pitch in the first place the last I checked.

So this is the government’s solution around drugs and playgrounds and public spaces and things of that nature. Let’s take a decrim program, where we’re going to flood the market with pharmaceutical-grade drugs, opioids, sell them for 50 cents a pill, have the black market and the drug dealers market them to high school students as safe. So instead of a high school student’s entry-level drug using — it used to be like pot and things of that nature — no, let’s jump in straight to opioids because it’s so-called safe.

[5:20 p.m.]

What we know, sadly, after years of watching things unfold on our streets is that at a certain point, the high these users are getting from the opioids isn’t the high they want anymore. It’s fentanyl.

So what’s happening with the sale of these safe supply pills? The money goes to help the person buy their fentanyl.

It’s a poisoned drug supply for many — absolutely — that think they’re taking something different than they’re getting. Fentanyl is also, and I think we have to be honest about this, the drug of choice by many. They’re willfully playing Russian roulette with that drug every time they get high. It’s not a rational decision, because they’re not thinking clearly.

I see the Leader of the Green Party disagrees with me, and that’s fine, and I’m not making absolute statements, but there are very…. It’s very clear, when you talk to anyone that works with street-entrenched people and drug addicted people that are desperate for help and desperate for their next high, that fentanyl is the drug of choice for a lot of those people.

They do know the consequence. It doesn’t make it that they don’t understand, and a right that they’re taking such a risk to get high. They need help, and help doesn’t…. That’s the point. Help doesn’t actually exist to a level for them in British Columbia.

Bill 34 may help address some steps in terms of helping to move people along, helping police to interact. It’s interesting that this government, after insisting certain elements of decrim had to be in place with Bill 34, are willing to acknowledge that things like seizing of drugs is back on the table if you happen to be in those areas. Interesting, because if you start to look at the bubble zones they’ve created with this, you very much are going back to pre-decrim days, despite this government wanting to say that’s what they’re actually finally recognizing and doing.

Again, without enhancements on those engagement pieces for people, where exactly are the police directing these people to in communities? That’s the part that the government doesn’t want to talk about. There’s more to harm reduction than just the provision of the drug itself. So without that free, fast and direct access to treatment, recovery and supports, this is just another piece of window-dressing by this government to try to backtrack quickly and acknowledge some of the errors they’ve made without actually admitting they’ve made errors.

It will be interesting, as we get into committee stage, finding out how exactly this will impact municipalities, what powers they truly will have or not have. What type of provisions, in clause 2, specifically…. How that will actually play out in real time, in terms of…. It’s one thing to consult with. What does that mean? What does it mean for a municipality and a public health officer having a disagreement after that consultation is over as to the next steps? I look forward to those phases.

I do think the one thing it is safe to say, especially from that all-party Health Committee, is that people do, in this chamber, want to see the carnage stop. But there’s a difference between wanting something to happen, especially if you’re in government, and a government taking appropriate steps and actions to actually change what we’re seeing happening. By every measure, by every measurable, as much as this government doesn’t like to be held to measurables and actual results, on this issue, sadly, they’re failing.

We’ve talked repeatedly in this chamber about overdose deaths. The spike of non-fatal overdoses is shocking in and of itself as well — and the impacts that puts on our first responders, the trauma it puts on our first responders, and the cost pressures it puts on our municipalities.

[5:25 p.m.]

Without any actual meaningful change to a philosophy from the government benches, I’m hard-pressed to see how Bill 34 will do much to make a better situation out of what we currently have, but at least it’s a step, frankly, in a direction that we’ve certainly been calling for on our side for a long time.

I would refer people back to our Better Is Possible plan so that when they listen to these debates and these speeches and say, “Oh, the opposition. What would they do differently?” It’s spelled out right there. You actually would have access to treatment, and it would be free. It would be treated like the health emergency it actually is.

That would actually make a difference to a lot of people and a lot of families that are desperate for help for their loved ones that do have an addiction. They’re high-functioning addictions, perhaps, right now. I say “right now” because that only lasts for so long a lot of times.

We have to recognize, as with most things in life, that there are varying degrees of this, and people have different needs. Someone that has been entrenched in the Downtown Eastside for years upon years is going to need a different type of access point than someone that is starting to miss work, has been injured on the job, might still be off of work, taking care of the injury, and, as the caller on the radio said, would actually like access to physiotherapy, not just a jar of pills from the government.

There are a lot of ways this can be addressed, but you need a government willing to actually do that and not just talk about it. Results, ultimately, are what matter, and literally, in this case, are life and death.

I thank you for the time on Bill 34.

G. Kyllo: It certainly gives me a lot of pride to rise in the House today and speak to Bill 34. I can’t believe how we got to this point. How is it that the government in any way, shape or form felt that allowing the open use of heroin, cocaine or fentanyl in parks and beaches and public spaces was in any way acceptable?

Many of our parks and playgrounds have bylaws. You can’t smoke a cigarette. You can’t have open consumption of alcohol. But only the NDP government would make the determination that somehow, the open use of drugs in parks, playgrounds and beaches was a good idea.

It’s interesting that government talks about the need to do consultation. Well, where was the consultation with the Union of B.C. Municipalities? Where was the consultation with the communities that each of us in this chamber represent to talk about whether this was going to be an acceptable form of behaviour in many of our parks, parks where we take our children and now I’m taking my grandchildren? That’s the last thing that most individuals want to have their children or grandchildren exposed to.

It’s very concerning that we’ve even got to this point. Bill 34 is largely to try and correct and remedy errors that this government made when they initially put forward the legislation. Those errors exist because they did not do the consultation. They never reached out to families to have a look at what the public engagement and what public perception would be in the communities that we all represent.

As my colleague the member for Kamloops–North Thompson was sharing, this is absolutely tragic: 2,300 lives a year; 13,000 since the state of emergency was initially initiated back in, I believe, 2016. So 13,000 people — sons, daughters, aunts, uncles, mothers, fathers, grandparents. It’s absolutely horrific.

The toll that it is taking, not just on the families directly involved, but their extended families, our first responders…. What are all of the other costs associated with that? Mental disorder claims in the health care services sector are up 500 percent in the last five years, rising from a cost of $39 million a year to, last year, $197 million a year in WorkSafeBC claims associated with mental disorder.

[5:30 p.m.]

A significant portion are attributed to a lot of the carnage that first responders are seeing on our streets. My colleague from Abbotsford South last year, in speaking about the legalization of use of illicit drugs in B.C., said that you can’t even buy a package of cigarettes without looking at a dead person staring back at you. There are all kinds of warnings.

What do people hear around government’s decision? Safe supply. Kids don’t hear: “Drugs are toxic. Drugs are incredibly addictive.” Our children are hearing that drugs are safe. It’s safe supply. How harmful could it be? Government is actually issuing it.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

The point that both my colleagues shared around Dilaudid, a highly addictive pharmaceutical drug that’s being doled out and now, as we’re hearing, being sold on the streets for $2, $3 and $5 a pill….

My cousin lives in Langley, and he has two wonderful kids. They’re high-school-aged kids. I was chatting with them last spring, and they shared with me that…. “Uncle Greg,” they said, “Two years ago, we didn’t see drugs at any parties.” If people showed up with drugs…. The kids were so concerned about the potential contamination of fentanyl that anybody that showed up with drugs was shunned from parties and kicked out.

That narrative has changed. What’s happening now is kids are showing up at parties. “It’s safe supply; it’s government-issued. You can take this stuff, and it’s not going to kill you. Give it a try.” As much as there’s a desire to maybe provide drugs for those users that are not going to be laced with fentanyl, what’s happening is that the government is bringing in a whole new cohort of recreational users.

Dilaudid. Well, guess what the kids are all calling it? Dillies. How dangerous could a dilly be? If you can get it for two to five bucks a pill, it gets you high as hell, and it’s safe — it’s not going to kill you — guess what kids are doing. They’re dabbling in it.

Nobody uses drugs with the idea of becoming an addict. It happens. They try it. Maybe it was a bit of a good time, but guess what happens. They end up getting addicted, and then they move on to other, stronger drugs.

When the legislation came forward and government decided to go down this very dangerous path — with the support of the current federal government, I might add…. At least the federal government had the initiative to identify some guardrails and said: “Look. Before the province of B.C. and the NDP government move forward with this very dangerous program, they need to have proper metrics.” If you don’t have the metrics, if you can’t measure it, you certainly can’t manage it. How are we going to measure and determine that this program is successful? How are we going to know if it’s working or not working?

Well, they didn’t do the work. This government failed to do the work to really, fully understand how many people were using, what the rates were for different age cohorts. So here we are. They jumped ahead without the proper guardrails in place. We have no way of making any determination as to whether this program, the path this government is on, is helping or harming the population of B.C.

We only have to look south of the border to the state of Oregon. When they moved towards decriminalization, they had a 34 percent increase in overdose deaths in the first year alone. I don’t imagine we’re too far off.

Those people that want to find help can’t find it. Mental health and addictions — we see those two phrases or conditions used synonymously all the time. For many individuals that have underlying mental health challenges, without the proper psychiatric support, which you cannot get in this province, with six to nine months waiting time….

[5:35 p.m.]

Even if your child needs help, it’s at least three months before they get the support that they need. When people are suffering pain, anguish, depression and anxiety, what do they do? Many of them self-medicate.

It’s really scary to think where we are at in society today. What’s the drinking age in British Columbia? Nineteen, the last time I checked. The RCMP happen to come across some kids drinking in a park. Maybe they’ve got a case of beer, maybe a mickey of whiskey. Guess what. The RCMP constable confiscates the alcohol. He can give the kids a charge for minor in possession. Certainly, can call their parents. Kids will have to appear in court to answer for the charges.

But hey, if you’ve got 2½ grams of cocaine, fentanyl or heroin in your wallet, not a problem. The RCMP can’t even confiscate it. Now, how is that possible? How did this government determine that 18 was the valid age for somebody to carry heroin, cocaine or fentanyl in their pocket with no consequences whatsoever? You can’t have a bottle of wine or a case of beer. That is how out of touch this government is with what’s happening in this province.

Probably not unlike many here, I know of individuals or families that have been stricken by the loss of somebody from a drug overdose. This isn’t helping. It’s bringing more people in. Recreational use of drugs — do you think this government is measuring that? Do you think they might have thought that this might be a good, important measurement to take before they move forward in this very dangerous path of legalizing the possession of small amounts of heroin, cocaine and fentanyl? No. They didn’t do the work.

I’ll guarantee you. I bet money on it, big money on it, that recreational use is up in British Columbia, up significantly. Maybe we’re not going to see a huge spike in opioid deaths tomorrow, but we’re creating the scenario where a huge amount of our youth are now starting to use dillies. How dangerous could a dilly be that’s provided by a government? They call it safe supply. It’s absolutely offensive. This government should back down. They should move away from this very dangerous program that they’ve adopted.

I could go on at great length, but I hope the members here listening get a bit of a sense of the concern that many of us have for our loved ones, our families and our community. This is going to end very, very badly.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 34, Restricting Public Consumption of Illegal Substances Act. I’ve listened with interest to the minister’s introduction of the bill at second reading and to the members of the official opposition who have spoken to it today. It is not a straightforward or particularly easy topic to speak to, and we’ve heard a lot of somewhat inflammatory comments today. I am hoping to be able to speak a bit more to data than anecdotes when we talk about this topic.

The minister, when he introduced second reading, said that this is a health matter. We have to approach it with compassion and empathy. The government has spent $1 billion. The government has heard concerns, particularly from local governments, about public drug use and that people want to feel safe. Then the minister said that the Legislature will treat decriminalized drugs similarly to tobacco and cannabis.

[5:40 p.m.]

However, at that point, I’d like to point out that people aren’t dying from a single use of tobacco or cannabis, as they are from an unregulated and highly poisonous illicit drug supply. He indicated that they would be asked to leave the area where they were using and go to an overdose prevention site or safe consumption site — were it to be so simple. There just simply isn’t that kind of infrastructure that exists in B.C. at this point.

I want to start by speaking to the decriminalization pilot project that is underway in B.C. One of the main goals of this project was to destigmatize people who use drugs. It’s unfortunate, even in this debate, that we’ve heard comments that are certainly stigmatizing of people who use drugs.

We’ve seen, historically, the harsh impacts of prohibition. The stigma and the shame associated with substance use has pushed many people to use alone, where we know the majority of deaths occur.

By walking back decriminalization without robust services and spaces for people to consume substances safely, we’re doing the opposite of the intended goals. We’re perpetuating the narrative that drug users are scary and dangerous. Without accessible safe consumption sites in every jurisdiction, this bill is simply pushing people who use drugs out of sight.

As a historian, I always like to look back at the context and what got us to a place like this. In 1876, the Canadian government introduced the first Indian Act after dispossessing and destroying the homelands of so many Indigenous communities. Those remaining were forced onto reserves. Their movements were restricted, and a pass system was used for any Indigenous people who sought to leave designated areas. This system replicated a similar story that unravelled across countless areas around the globe as a result of colonization.

A narrative persisted that there were groups of people who were classified as undesirable. They were forbidden from entering places which the dominant and privileged society occupied. This narrative has continued to persist today from the reserve systems to the movements to incarcerate and punish certain classes of people. Think back to Japanese internment camps, the various phases of the Chinese head tax and, more recently, the role that institutions have played in removing people with mental health issues from the body politic.

During Expo 86, over 1,000 people were evicted from their homes in the Downtown Eastside with barely any notice. These low-income residents were removed from their homes without anywhere to go to make way for the millions of visitors coming to experience Expo 86.

Dispossession and displacement have a long history in this country and in this province, built on a narrative that there are people who do not deserve the same rights to home, freedom, security, safety that others have.

In Vancouver in the 1970s, the communities of Hogan’s Alley were faced with similar displacement. Hogan’s Alley was a vibrant, diverse community of predominantly black residents and businesses. This community was destroyed for the creation of the Georgia Viaduct.

Throughout much of North America “urban renewal pushed mostly communities of colour out of their homes and communities, displaced and dispersed these communities fractured in the name of urban renewal and progress.”

Our province and this country have a long history of displacing and dispossessing people of their land and homes, and it is crucial to recognize this history to understand this narrative being continued in this bill. This legislation appears to recreate and amplify the same narrative that there is a class of people who should not be occupying public spaces.

[5:45 p.m.]

I’m concerned and have heard concerns from bylaw officers and police officers about the confusion that this bill will create, the onus it puts on police and the extreme discretion of police that this legislation justifies.

For over a century, since the banning of opium, the law enforcement bodies of this country have been instructed and obligated to crack down on Black, Indigenous and people of colour.

Reports, inquiries, commissions, Supreme Court rulings have raised the critical issue of the overrepresentation of Indigenous people in carceral systems. A Statistics Canada report detailing the incarceration rates of 2021 and 2022 found the Indigenous incarceration rate is about nine times higher than that of non-Indigenous people. First Nations people represented 15.4 percent of toxic drug deaths in 2022 yet comprise only 3.3 percent of B.C.’s population.

The aim of the decriminalization pilot project is to destigmatize people who use drugs. By recognizing the long, fraught and complex history of substance use, the provincial and federal governments committed to try to change the stigma that hard drug use has surrounding it.

In A Pathway to Hope, published in 2019, the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions states: “Research suggests that stigma prevents 40 percent of people with anxiety or depression from seeking help — a trend that is magnified when put under a lens of cultural, gender, ethnicity, age, poverty, and sexual and gender identity factors…. In the case of substance use and addiction, given the negative view society has about people who use drugs, the stigma and multiple barriers to access care can be even more problematic.”

The decriminalization pilot project is a key aspect in destigmatizing people who use drugs. In the stop overdose campaign, the ministry states: “Often people are unable to access life-saving supports and services because they are worried about being arrested or having their drugs seized if they reach out. By decriminalizing people who use small amounts of drugs, B.C. aims to break down barriers that prevent people from getting help.”

I won’t disagree with members of the official opposition who pointed out that in bringing in the decriminalization pilot project, the government didn’t do the work necessary to ensure that local governments understood and had the supports and services available in their communities and that there was the infrastructure already in place to support people.

What we heard over and over again in the Health Committee, which was a committee that had more input than any other committee in B.C., was that there aren’t the supports, that there isn’t the infrastructure, that there aren’t safe consumption sites, that there isn’t access to services and supports available to people in this province.

The introduction of this legislation creates renewed stig­ma. Peers and people with lived experience have stated that Bill 34 galvanizes the belief that drug users are a dangerous class of people, and as they are undesirable, they should not be permitted to occupy public spaces with the same level of dignity afforded to others. Specifically, this legislation targets unhoused community members. It is not dissimilar to the narrative of mandatory treatment. Both are glaring examples of policy goals that do not centre the people most affected.

It’s clear this legislation is not a matter of listening to and helping people who use substances or people with men­tal health challenges. It’s a matter of trying to push these people out of sight.

I think we need to be honest about the role that politics is playing. We’re willing to point at people who are the most marginalized in our province and then say we just need to solve that problem.

[5:50 p.m.]

These people are in these situations because government has failed to address the root causes of these problems — ever-growing inequality, lack of affordability, a growing housing crisis, unaddressed mental health and trauma, lack of care and belonging in society. This is an example of legislation that is aiming to respond to a symptom of a growing number of intersecting crises rather than the crises themselves.

Politicians are okay to direct anger and resentment to­wards the most vulnerable. The world we should be striving for is one in which there is no homelessness, where people don’t need to use in public spaces because there are enough safe consumption sites, where people feel a part of their communities, where they can access the supports they desire when they want. These people have fallen through ever-widening cracks of the social safety system, a net that has become a high wire.

It’s scarring when somebody loses housing, loses a community member, a family member, a friend, when they experience trauma or violence, when they are unable to find shelter. At each loss, there is scarring, and people get to the place that the scarring is so deep that it’s hard to function. Drug use can be a response to that scarring and the brutal circumstances that people are facing.

I’ve heard from people in my community who said to me: “Until I had a secure place to sleep at night, my only two questions throughout the day were, ‘Where am I sleeping tonight? Where am I getting my drugs?’”

The fact that we are not reckoning with the impact that it has on people to not sleep…. I’ve brought this up before, but the lack of sleep, the lack of the ability to sleep safely, securely, to know that you can go to sleep and that you’re not going to be hurt or assaulted or robbed…. This is not just a basic human dignity; this is a human need. It is a human right, and we are not meeting that human right in B.C. in staggering numbers.

I want to hear others in this House reflect on what it does to a human being to not have the security to sleep at night or being forced to sleep in a place that is unsafe.

People who use drugs are not bad people. Challenging circumstances, unresolved mental health and trauma, addiction, lack of housing and poverty are all compounding factors in a toxic drug crisis that, as we’ve heard over and over, has killed 13,000 people since the emergency was declared in this province. It has become normalized for this many people to die in our society.

How did we get there, to hear the death toll and take no action, to essentially have no response now, month after month? We are a province that does not have enough safe places to go, that does not have enough safe consumption sites. Some communities have nothing. Overdose prevention services that meet people’s needs are essential.

Since 2017, inhalation has been the primary mode of consumption for drug poisoning deaths. Not injection, smoking. This year alone, over 65 percent of drug poisoning deaths were caused by inhalation, yet throughout this province, there are only 19 safe consumption sites that accommodate smoking.

So when the minister, in introducing second reading this afternoon, said people would be encouraged to move along and go to a safe consumption site, there are only 19 of those in the entire province that can accommodate people who use their drugs by smoking them. Nineteen.

The chief coroner of B.C., Lisa Lapointe, has regularly stated that the criminalization of drug use has failed at all levels. There’s no evidence that there has been an increase in substance use in public places listed by this legislation.

[5:55 p.m.]

We hear a lot of anecdotes, and yes, as a parent, playgrounds I absolutely want to be a safe place for my child and my children’s children eventually. But it’s not drug users that we have to point to when we see people feeling unsafe in their communities. It is the fact that we collectively, as a society, have created these gaps in our social safety net that are so huge that more and more people are falling through them.

That’s why we feel unsafe. People, of course, are upset seeing this glaring poverty, this glaring need in our communities, in our cities and towns. Of course we are all upset by that. But blaming the people who have been failed — that’s not the solution here.

The contents of this bill also do not reflect the recommendations of the all-party Health Committee. The all-party Health Committee committed to listening to and learning from experts, from people with lived experience and people working on the front lines.

It was powerful and devastating to be a member of that committee, to work alongside my colleagues, work to­wards devising solutions that we could all agree to, that we could present to the government and say: “You’ve got all parties on side. You can move. Go.”

We heard, time and time again, that we needed to approach this crisis differently, because what we’ve done so far has not been working. The Health Committee’s final report was released in November of 2022. It included 37 recommendations on how to address the drug poisoning crisis.

Those recommendations included, No. 1: “Rapidly scale up a flexible, evidence-based, low-barrier, comprehensive continuum of care that spans the social determinants of health, prevention and education, harm reduction, safer supply, and treatment and recovery, and includes: housing, employment and income, and mental health supports; defined goals, metrics and timelines; clear accountability mechanisms; and regular reporting on the results.”

Another of the recommendations: “Fully integrate people who use or have used drugs into the development and implementation of new policies and programs that directly impact them and their peers, including youth; 2SLGBTQIA+ people; Indigenous people; rural and remote residents; parents; people working in the trades, in transportation or as equipment operators; people with mental health challenges; and people who are experiencing homelessness.”

Recommendation No. 6: “Increase funding for an expanded, affordable and accessible continuum of housing options for individuals at all stages of substance use, including supportive housing programs that provide wraparound supports, and develop a toolkit of best practices for supportive housing initiatives to ensure success and community support.”

If we want our communities to feel safer, and I think we all agree on that, make them safe for everybody, including people right now who feel the most unsafe, I will argue, and they are people who are unhoused.

Recommendation No. 9: “Urgently ensure the availability of provincewide, standardized — in terms of resourcing, operating and evaluating parameters — harm reduction services, including overdose prevention and drug-checking services; and develop community-building measures to overcome local opposition.”

[6:00 p.m.]

One example of a solution in real time that addresses this multitude of issues is the Village project in the Cowichan Valley. I was there this morning with the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions, hosted by the mayor and the operators of the Village project, Lookout Housing and Cowichan Housing Association. Thirty-five pods in three groups, so 12, 12, 11.

Everybody has their own sleeping pod. The door locks. The window opens. There’s heat. There’s a table and a desk. Then each pod has a collective eating area, shared bathroom facilities, shower facilities. Staff are on site 24 hours a day, and meals are provided. A pharmacist visits several times a day to meet the needs of people — health care.

One of the things that we heard this morning and that I’ve heard several times about The Village project is that for people to begin to be able to access the services that are available, The Village is an example of where those services can come to the people where they’re at.

The visits that I’ve made to this site…. There’s a real pride of the people that are working there about the success of the residents. There’s a real hopefulness that this is now a proven project. It’s demonstrated to be successful. Kelowna and Campbell River are looking at it as a project that they want to take on, as a model they want to take on.

It’s more than just providing housing. It’s providing stabilization. It’s providing access to health care. It’s a recovery approach to meeting people’s needs. I think in communities all across B.C., government should be scaling up its funding to the providers that can demonstrate they can replicate a model just like this. People go from, sometimes, years or even decades of being unhoused, succeed at The Village project and then move into other forms of housing.

It’s culturally safe. The Elders from Cowichan Tribes visit the site. There’s ceremony. The approach is informed by the residents, so it’s not a one-size-fits-all, but it really takes into account that these are human beings, whole human beings. To be treated with dignity and respect and compassion can go a long way for a person who has been lacking that in their lives.

We know, as well, that a large number of people who are going to be affected by this legislation are, in fact, people who have already been failed by government, that youth who age out of care have an extremely high rate of homelessness, are at risk of drug use, are at risk of incarceration.

I think it’s really important for us to recognize that a lot of people that we see have been failed by multiple systems, have often been failed specifically by a government system that was meant to protect them and did the opposite. This is why I really worry about some of the rhetoric that we’re hearing around drug use right now because it takes us back to a place of stigmatizing, of blaming people, of dehumanizing. And we can see the truly deadly outcomes of that approach.

[6:05 p.m.]

One of the things that we’ve been calling for….

I am the designated speaker, as well, on this. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Deputy Speaker: Thank you, Member.

S. Furstenau: We’ve heard from the official opposition about the need to scale up treatment. Yes, that is absolutely an important goal and outcome. But I will argue — and I will go back to the 2016 death review panel and the coroner’s recommendations then — that we should not scale up anything until it has been properly regulated and until we can be assured that what is being offered as addictions treatment is evidence-based.

Right now, and the coroner pointed this out and has pointed it out over and over again, anybody can hang up a shingle and call themselves an addictions counsellor or offer addictions treatment.

They don’t need to have had any training. They don’t need to have any evidence that their program is going to be successful. They do not need to provide any data as to whether it is successful. So we are further putting at risk people who are already underserved by government, to say the least, and by society.

I really strongly urge this government to take those recommendations, eight years now that the coroner has been making this recommendation and this call, to ensure that what is generally agreed to….

This has been declared a health emergency. If we are taking a health care approach to this, which we should, I don’t think any of us would be comfortable seeking health care in any other facet and thinking nobody is regulating the delivery of this health care, that the person providing me with a service that is being called health care, has no responsibility and no oversight as to whether that service is going to help me or harm me. I think that this is absolutely a critical and essential step that this government needs to take and to take it very seriously.

The B.C. Centre for Disease Control data indicates — this is from 2019 — that between 156,000 and 221,000 people use unregulated substances in a given year, almost a quarter of a million people in B.C. using unregulated substance. That’s from experimental use to social recreational use, to regular use.

When we talk about substance use, often in here, in particular, we’re generally talking about people who have substance use dependency or who are using substances regularly. Yet we know that for a number of the people who die every year in this province, they are not regularly using substances. For a lot of them, it might be the experimental, and for others, it might be the recreational. I think that it’s really important for us to keep that data in mind when we’re talking about this issue.

Other data from the B.C. Centre for Disease Control…. Next door to us, Alberta, which has not embarked on a decriminalization pilot project as we have…. The overdose mortality rates are essentially the same as B.C. I think that’s really important to keep in mind with the rhetoric that is happening.

The other piece of information and data that has come is that since March 2020, there’s no significant increase in people being newly diagnosed with an opioid use disorder in B.C. There’s no significant increase in hydromorphone-only drug toxicity deaths in B.C. and no relationship, according to B.C. Centre for Disease Control, between hydromorphone dispensation volumes and new cases of opioid use disorder in B.C.

[6:10 p.m.]

It’s really important that we look at the data and the information that’s available to us to ensure we are stating accurately what the reality is in British Columbia. Rates of new diagnoses of opioid use disorder among youth under 19 are low compared to other age groups and, in fact, declining in the last year. Prescription opioid dispensations have been declining in B.C. since 2011. Defined daily dose of high potency opioids per 1,000 persons declined 49.5 percent in B.C. between 2011 and 2018.

Considering the use of substances in this province, I think one of the things that’s really important and has been documented is the rise of the use of crystal methamphetamine — it was the most commonly reported substance use since 2019 — and that the deaths in B.C. continue to be driven by fentanyl, and also by, now, there is a lot of polysubstance use, benzodiazepines and stimulants in the illicit drug supply, which are very dangerous.

I bring this data and evidence from BCCDC because I think it is important for us as elected representatives to evaluate policies and ensure government is making decisions based on evidence and science. The evidence in the report from BCCDC finds that most persons who’ve had a fatal overdose were not engaged in treatment, did not have a diagnosed opioid use disorder, and that more people are dying of smoking than ever.

Prescription opioids and prescribed safer supply are not primary drivers of the unregulated drug poisoning crisis. It is the unregulated street supply that is killing people, and there are not nearly enough places to consume substances safely throughout this province.

One of the things that we heard over and over again during the Health Committee was how easy it is to access the illicit drug supply in this province. We heard that from everyone, from medical health officers to people’s lived experience. It is unbelievably easy and terribly easy to access the unregulated, illicit, very poisonous drug supply in this province. That should be a concern.

We’ve done, collectively, a lot of work to create plans and solutions on how to address this crisis, but this legislation does not reflect the science, the history nor the recommendations of the all-party Health Committee. Our questions include who was consulted in forming this legislation. People with lived and living experience with substance use have raised serious concerns about how decriminalization was approached in the first place.

It appears the government is not making decisions based on science nor the people who are more directly impacted by the drug war, the drug poisoning crisis, the war on poor people and the housing crisis. We’re told one story that unprecedented work has been undertaken to address this crisis, yet, still, every day six people are killed by a toxic drug supply, and it has become normalized to see this drastic and dramatic loss of life.

There are many facets to this problem, and we won’t fix them all immediately, but if we can agree that what we don’t want to see is public drug use, that is something that can be solved, but not through this legislation. We need safe consumption sites available and accessible in every community, and these services must meet people’s needs where they’re at. No jurisdiction has arrested their way out of this problem. We heard that on the committee. We heard that from law enforcement — that we will not arrest ourselves out of this crisis.

[6:15 p.m.]

Until these necessary and reasonable supports are in place, we can’t support this bill, which isn’t good enough to save the lives of people dying in record numbers in British Columbia every single day.

I think it’s really important for us to recognize that what is being framed as a drug problem is actually, in many cases, a poverty problem, and that poverty problem continues to grow in this province. Until we address the human right for housing for everybody, we are going to see this growing sense of insecurity pervade all of our communities. That insecurity can only be solved by us collectively agreeing that we can and must meet people’s basic needs in this province. We absolutely can. It’s not that there isn’t enough to go around.

I want us to recognize, and I think we can all agree on this, that we should and must be a province that does not accept homelessness as just a natural offshoot of our economy or part of what happens when we let market forces take over our housing. Homelessness and the deaths that we’re seeing from the toxic drug crisis are policy choices, so it’s our policy choices in here that are necessary to solve these crises.

M. Morris: I would like to offer my comments on Bill 34 as well.

Listening to the previous speaker, the Leader of the Green Party, I agree, this is a health issue, but it is also a public safety issue. It’s a requirement of government to ensure the public is safe, our communities are safe, our playgrounds are safe, our schools are safe. With unregulated use of intoxicants like drugs, it becomes a safety issue for the students, as we’ve seen in several circumstances.

I also agree with the member of the Green Party when she says we can’t arrest ourselves out of the situation that we’re in. I 100 percent agree, but we can’t ignore it either, and that’s what’s happening.

People walk by individuals that are intoxicated or under the influence of drugs or alcohol, and they ignore it, and they ask them to move on, as these amendments suggest. But what if they don’t? There’s not much that can be done in these kinds of situations here, and it adds to the problems that we see on the streets.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

The police ignore it because they are powerless. There are no facilities for them to take individuals to if they happen to be passed out, intoxicated with drugs. They phone an ambulance and the ambulance shows up and they administer naloxone if the police haven’t already done that, or the fire department administers naloxone, but it doesn’t change the situation at all.

It was a Health Minister and myself back in 2016 when we declared the initial state of emergency with respect to the number of people that were dying on the streets from opiate overdoses, and particularly fentanyl. The situation has got progressively worse since then.

We’ve stated in our Better is Possible policies looking forward that we need addictions and recovery centres. We need psychiatric treatment centres for individuals that are suffering both from addictions and some type of mental illness as well. We don’t have those, and I am shocked and dismayed that the government has not implemented something along those lines years ago to address the number of people that are passing away.

[6:20 p.m.]

There was a friend of the family, very close to us and very close to my own children, a young fellow that was in his 30s that had overdosed on fentanyl. He was in hospital for a number of weeks recovering before he finally took his final overdose and passed away.

I asked him: “Why do you do this when you know that the ultimate situation could lead to death?” He looked at me — he was very respectful; he always called me “Mr. Morris” — and he said: “Because there is no high like it. There is nothing better than the feeling that I get from taking this particular drug.”

That’s the situation that has led to fentanyl becoming the drug of choice for opiate-addicted individuals right across this province, right across this country. It is the drug of choice, regardless of what some folks want to suggest. I’ve got family members involved in policing the communities in B.C., and that’s the information that they get, as well, from individuals who are users.

If it is the drug of choice, it’s cheap to make. The people that are supplying fentanyl to the addicted community that we have can get the precursors for making fentanyl cheap, and they can produce copious quantities of fentanyl and spread it across the country. A lot of that appears to be done without any hesitation.

One of the tools that police have with respect to trafficking is being able to seize smaller quantities of the drugs off of street traffickers who are peddling it for the bigger pushers and whatnot. So we’re eliminating a lot of the tools that police have, and this bill does nothing to enhance that. It does nothing to give the capability to police to help these individuals regardless, again, of what people think.

They talk about decriminalization and the stigma attached to the criminalization of drugs. Police in British Columbia haven’t charged people with simple possession of drugs — it doesn’t matter what kind of drug it is — for years, probably more than a decade, in this province. Decriminalization is a non-starter in the police commun­ities. The police haven’t done this.

The stigma is not so much at any criminal part that might have a part to play. The subsequent selling of stolen property, stealing property to support a drug habit — that’s part of the stigma.

But the real stigma is the fact that they are addicted, and they don’t know what to do about it. They don’t have the ability to go to government and say: “I want to go into a treatment centre right now. I need to go in right now in order to preserve my health and to get better down the road.” That is where the stigma…. People are ashamed that they are addicts in a lot of cases, and they don’t know who to turn to for help. That’s one of the main issues.

One of the things that isn’t talked about in this bill, and I haven’t heard anybody speak about it so far during this second reading, is the number of individuals who are addicted to opiates and are taking drugs on a routine basis that end up with acquired brain injury as a result of overdosing.

The member that spoke before me talked about some of the statistics that the Canadian Centre for Disease Control has with the amount of people that are using. One of the statistical pieces of information I saw from the centre a couple of years ago — and I was shocked by it — was the number of overdoses which relate to acquired brain injury that eventually lead to death, unfortunately, in a lot of individuals. It’s in the tens of thousands — people that overdose who end up with acquired brain injury.

If they overdose two and three and four and five times, of course, that could very much lead to death, but it leads to an increased level of brain injury to the point where a lot of individuals can no longer function on their own.

They need that compassion and that care that our Better is Possible provision will provide, where we will have the regional psychiatric centres. We can place people in there and wean them off whatever drug they might be on, so a proper diagnosis of their mental issues can be undertaken.

[6:25 p.m.]

I’ve had a family member that it took close to a year to wean the individual off of the drugs that they were on in order to do a proper psychiatric assessment and diagnosis of their issues.

But until we do that, we’re going to continue to have these poor, unfortunate individuals dying on our streets or passing out in the cold weather.

Mr. Speaker: Noting the hour, Member.

M. Morris: Noting the hour, Mr. Speaker, I reserve my place and move to adjourn the debate.

M. Morris moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

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

The House adjourned at 6:26 p.m.