Fifth Session, 42nd Parliament (2024)

OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Morning Sitting

Issue No. 416

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.


CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Statements (Standing Order 25B)

M. Bernier

K. Paddon

T. Wat

F. Donnelly

B. Stewart

S. Chant

Oral Questions

R. Merrifield

Hon. A. Dix

S. Bond

A. Olsen

Hon. G. Heyman

J. Rustad

Hon. M. Rankin

E. Sturko

Hon. A. Dix

E. Sturko

Hon. A. Dix

T. Wat

Hon. J. Whiteside

P. Milobar

Hon. R. Kahlon

Tabling Documents

Office of the Ombudsperson, special report, Alone: The Prolonged and Repeated Isolation of Youth in Custody, April 2024

Petitions

S. Chant

Orders of the Day

Third Reading of Bills

Second Reading of Bills

Hon. N. Sharma

S. Furstenau

M. Lee

Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room

Committee of the Whole House

N. Letnick

Hon. G. Lore

E. Ross

A. Olsen

Proceedings in the Birch Room

Committee of Supply

E. Sturko

Hon. R. Singh


TUESDAY, APRIL 23, 2024

The House met at 10:05 a.m.

[The Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Prayers and reflections: M. Dykeman.

Introductions by Members

Hon. D. Coulter: As part of Science Meets Parliament today, I’m happy to host three associate and assistant professors and scientists from the program today for a brief shadow and tour and also a lunch.

We have Runa Das, associate professor in the college of interdisciplinary studies at Royal Roads University; Kimberly Thomson, assistant professor at Simon Fraser University, whose research focus includes children’s mental health promotion from a public policy lens; and Travis Salway, assistant professor of health sciences at Simon Fraser University.

Would the House please make them feel welcome.

Hon. H. Bains: In the House today are some wonderful people from Surrey-Newton. They are here to watch question period and look around this beautiful building later on today and, hopefully, will drop by for a cup of tea in my office.

They are here to just watch what we do here. They are part of a walking group. They come and have coffee across the street from my office, and I go and listen to their very, very good stories.

They are Yvonne Brennan, Lucie Walker, Elaine Saunders, Joyce Doyle, Gail Carter, Donna Carlaw and Joan Danis. Please help me give them a very, very warm welcome.

Thank you for coming.

R. Merrifield: I’m thrilled, as the champion for the day on behalf of the B.C. United official opposition, to welcome to the House 31 individuals blazing trails as emerging leaders in the science community from across B.C. They are here with the Canadian Science Policy Centre to bring its federal program, Science Meets Parliament, to the Legislature.

Many members of our caucus will be meeting with these incredible scientists to promote dialogue and help strengthen the connections between B.C. scientific and political communities so they can learn about policy-making in the Legislative Assembly.

Would the House please join me in welcoming our Science Meets Parliament guests to the House.

K. Chen: Today we have about 150 members and friends from the North American Taiwanese Women’s Association, NATWA, visiting the Legislature from all over Canada and North America. Given their group size, they won’t join QP, but I do want to give a special thanks to our parliamentary education office, especially Sally Lee, for organizing their visit today.

I also want to thank Ms. Cecilia Chueh, 陳慧中老師, chén huì zhōng lǎo shī, for bringing these visitors, as we also shared how B.C. is special to Taiwanese Canadians.

We have four MLAs with a Taiwanese background. I am also honoured to be the first Taiwanese Canadian to be appointed to the B.C. cabinet, and the first one to retire too.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the contributions of many Taiwanese Canadians and also hope these friends from NATWA enjoy their visit.

[10:10 a.m.]

S. Chant: I, too, have had the opportunity to meet with a couple of our scientists, and I am just dumbstruck by the work and method that they bring to doing what they’re doing.

One of them, Paweena Sukhawathanakul, is working with the school systems in trying to integrate mental health as an ongoing component, as an expectation in the schools. We’ve been doing a lot of work in that area, and what she’s doing is looking at making it so that it’s just a given, just a part of being in schools, rather than a pilot here or what this school district is doing there. She’s doing amazing work.

Then we have Andrea Mellor. Now, it’s very complicated for me to try and explain. She’s a psychologist and is working towards understanding how to support our street-entrenched youths to try and get beyond where they’re at and try and make it so that they have a life beyond “Where’s the next meal?” or other things.

The work that they are doing is phenomenal. They’re both out of University of Victoria. I am delighted to have them with me today.

I hope this House can make them feel truly welcome and honour and respect the work that they are doing.

B. D’Eith: Today is one of my favourite days. It’s B.C. Book Day.

I wanted to mention that B.C. Book Day was actually established by former Speaker Linda Reid and the Minister of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. We’re really grateful for that. It’s a great day to celebrate publishing, magazines and the book industry in British Columbia.

I wanted to say we have got lots of folks in the precinct today. We’ve got Leslie Bootle, who’s the executive director of Books B.C.; Sylvia Skene, who’s the executive director of Magazines B.C.; Laraine Coates, who’s the director of marketing and business development at UBC Press and vice-chair of Books B.C.

We’ve got Don Gorman, who’s publisher of Rocky Mountain Books and chair of Books B.C.; and Brian Lam, publisher at Arsenal Pulp Press; Alina Cerminara, who’s the publisher at FOLKLIFE; Barb Risto, the publisher at INSPIRED 55+ Lifestyle Magazine; Nina Wagner, who’s group VP of publishing and operations in Canada Wide Media and Alive Publishing Group.

Of course, we’ve got Prem Gill here, from Creative B.C.; Wendy Atkinson, who’s the publisher at Ronsdale Press; and Lora McKay, who is a senior director with the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

As parliamentary secretary, I wanted to welcome you all to B.C. Book Day.

Thanks, everybody.

B. Anderson: Today I have a really special guest in the gallery, Cameron Wetter. He is a third-year political science student at UBC.

Cameron is from Nelson, and I am really delighted. This is his first time watching question period. He also worked at the Nelson and District Community Complex, where my mom works. She’s known Cameron for a really long time.

I’m really excited for him to get to see the proceedings in the House today. He’s also joining us for the lunch with scientists.

Can this whole House please make him feel very welcome.

S. Furstenau: I have some very special guests in the gallery today.

I’m really delighted to introduce Grace Garraway. Grace is a grade 10 student at Vic High, and she’s shadowing me today. Grace is interested in rowing. She likes to read true crime and hopes to be a pediatrician. It’s really great to meet Grace and to spend some time with her.

I also have another special guest, Gabe Luna, who is shadowing me today. Gabe is a UVic student. He’s studying creative writing and political science. He has taken peace and conflict and multimedia art courses and recovery advocacy. Gabe is a very special guest. I have known Gabe since he was a wee baby. His parents, John and Julie Luna, are two of my dearest and closest friends, and it’s such a delight to have Gabe here today.

With them is also a friend of mine, Naomi Devine. Naomi is a master communicator and strategist, but what impresses me most about Naomi is that she doesn’t do cold-water dipping. She goes swimming for half an hour or more in the ocean. I’m so impressed by that capacity to stay in cold water. I do not have it.

[10:15 a.m.]

A shout-out to the Science Meets Parliament group. I really enjoyed our conversation yesterday morning. I look forward to spending more time with them.

And it’s wonderful to see Mayor Silas White up in the gallery as well.

There are lots of friendly faces in the gallery today. Would the House make them all most welcome.

D. Routley: As a previous speaker noted, it is B.C. Book Day, and Gabriola Island is in the House.

I would like to welcome New Society Publishers. They’re a publishing house that helps build a just and ecologically sustainable society. New Society was the first carbon-neu­tral publishing house in North America. Joining us are publisher Julie Raddysh and sales manager EJ Hurst.

Let’s make them all welcome.

N. Simons: My friend from Cowichan Valley introduced the mayor of Gibsons, Silas White, here. Thank you for that.

It’s nice to see you, Silas.

Silas is also here as the publisher of Nightwood Editions, and he’s representing Douglas and McIntyre as well as Harbour Publishing. Sunshine Coast is well represented in this House.

Thank you, and let’s make Silas welcome.

H. Yao: I do have two introductions to make today.

Firstly, I want to wish Chi Yuen Young a happy 90th birthday. For anybody who’s been attending other community events and engaging our community in a suppor­tive way, we all know who he is. He’s the one who is 90 years old, still carries a lovely camera, always strikes up a joke and makes sure we are all entertained by his lovely presence and always sharing a photo with us.

The second introduction I would like to introduce is the B.C. Winter Games 2024. We know it has been quite a success in B.C., and we have quite a few constituents who are participating in the games. I would like to recognize many of them, and bear with me if I butcher anybody’s last name. We will try to send a proper spelling to Hansard.

We have Cynthia K.A. Wan Lei from badminton, Sora Murakami from figure skating, Haru Murakami from karate. We have Toshihide Uchiage, karate coach; Kira Hodge, ringette coach assistant; and Hamza Elburai, wheelchair basketball.

Thank you everybody, and please join us and congratulate everybody, every one of them.

S. Chandra Herbert: It gives me great pleasure to welcome Wendy Atkinson, a constituent of the West End, here. She’s the publisher of Ronsdale Press.

I would urge members to pick up Ronsdale Press’s books — great B.C. authors, great B.C. history, incredible stories — and thank Wendy for picking up the mantle of Ronsdale after Ron Hatch, who had long been the publisher and a constituent as well, passed away. Wendy has revitalized the publication house and is bringing great titles to our shelves, and I thank her for it.

A. Walker: I want to introduce to the House two incredible scientists that I met this morning through the Science Meets Parliament committee.

Nisha from TRU is doing some incredible work as far as trying to screen for breast cancer, as well as advanced cattle genomics.

Xuekui, all the way from the University of Victoria, is doing some incredible work right now trying to diagnose COPD for treatment, among other interesting things.

I thank them for coming and hope the House can make them feel very welcome.

J. Rice: I, too, have two scientists visiting today that I am struggling to connect with, so this is my shameless, shameless ask, because I’ve tried by email, and I had no responses.

I am booked all day, but if someone could take duty from 11 to 12 or sometime between 1:30 and 3 p.m. — 11 to 12 is preferable for my scientists, I believe — I could actually meet with them. If I don’t get to meet with them, I’m happy to introduce anyone here that’s interested to them, because they have really interesting research topics.

Kaylee Byers….

The Speaker: Member, no electronics.

J. Rice: Oh, okay.

Kaylee and Heather, I sincerely apologize.

Kaylee Byers…. Actually, I know people are interested in this topic. I know nothing about it, but it’s chronic wasting disease. Her research is around that.

[10:20 a.m.]

Then for Heather Palis, she’s actually looking at substance use disorder and the fact that so many of us, so many of our constituents, are suffering from this.

However, here I’m going to hypothesize what I think her hypotheses are. A lot of people are misdiagnosed. I don’t believe so many people spontaneously pop out with substance use disorder, that there are other co-morbid conditions. I want to give you one example. This is something I’m passionate about. Twenty-eight percent of people who are referred to a mood disorder clinic had undiagnosed ADHD. That’s what I was hoping to talk to her about.

Thank you. Make them feel welcome.

The Speaker: If any other scientist was not introduced, I introduce all of you.

Welcome. All of you are most welcome.

Statements
(Standing Order 25B)

CHETWYND AND DISTRICT HOSPITAL
FOUNDATION AND FUNDRAISING

M. Bernier: This Saturday in Chetwynd, the hospital foundation will be holding their annual gala, and it will once again be a sold-out event.

In 2022, that saw their first attempt at a big fundraising event. That year they were able to raise enough money from community members and business supporters to purchase an ultrasound machine. This year, thanks to everyone involved, the plan is to try to raise enough money to purchase two ECG machines and a bladder scanner.

With all the challenges that Chetwynd has been facing in recruiting and retaining much-needed doctors and nurses, and the hospital being forced into ongoing diversions because of that, the passionate and concerned people in Chetwynd are not giving up. The community members keep stepping up and trying to manage what is at least in their control, which is staying positive and doing what they can to support and promote the much-needed health services in our region.

Foundation board members Melanie Maracle, Kelly Berg, Laura Howes, Janet Wark, Jackalynn Redenbach, Jen Parrish, Fiona Klassen and Kayla Strachan deserve a tremendous thank-you from all of us for devoting so much of their time supporting the hospital and doing all the hard work to hold fundraisers, like this weekend’s gala, in order to fill the gaps and bring in the much-needed equipment and supports all the people in Chetwynd and surrounding area need.

This will be an exciting event, titled the Gatsby Gala. I can tell you that the people in Chetwynd pull out all the stops and throw one of the best galas in the Peace region. It’s an event that I am again excited to be going to with my family.

I’m always proud to be supporting this important community group and the people who live in Chetwynd.

B.C. BOOK DAY

K. Paddon: I rise in the House today to recognize British Columbia’s tenth annual B.C. Book Day.

I know so many of us have memories of either being read to or reading the stories of this beautiful province. As part of B.C. Creative Industries Week, B.C. Book Day is an opportunity for British Columbians to celebrate the impact of the book publishing industry on the province and how it’s shaping B.C.’s creative landscape. It brings our stories, culture and literature to millions of readers at homes, in schools and around the world.

In B.C., we recognize the value, the immense transformative effect, of literature. Books expose us to diverse perspectives, experiences and ideas, fostering empathy, awareness and greater understanding. Books can also inspire personal growth, motivate us to set goals, expand our point of view and engage our critical thinking. All of this is often a catalyst for positive change and social connection that improves our quality of life.

B.C. has the second-largest English-language book publishing market in Canada. In 2022, this vital part of B.C.’s creative sector contributed $74 million to the GDP and provided 679 jobs, employing 3,288 people, including freelancers. In 2023, we announced $600,000 in funding for books and magazine publishers over three years as part of our historic $42 million for the creative sector.

[10:25 a.m.]

I know at home on my reading list, next comes Like Joyful Tears by David Starr, a Ronsdale Press selection.

Today, in honour of B.C. Book Day, I’d like everybody to join the hard-working people in the publishing industry in the rotunda, where they’re spotlighting many of B.C.’s talented writers, authors, as well as our dedicated editors and publishers. We have so much talent to be proud of in this province.

Can I please ask all the members of this House to join me in applauding British Columbians working in B.C.’s book industry.

Happy B.C. Book Day.

RICHMOND POVERTY REDUCTION
COALITION AND WORK OF DEIRDRE WHALEN

T. Wat: Today I rise to recognize and echo the persistent and commendable efforts of Deirdre Whalen, president of the Richmond Poverty Reduction Coalition.

Ms. Whalen’s recent correspondence with our government highlights urgent concerns that affect our constituents in Richmond and resonate across our province. Ms. Whalen has been a staunch advocate for providing free transit for youth between the ages of 13 and 18 to reduce barriers and enhance accessibility for our young residents. This initiative supports our shared vision for a sustainable, inclusive community where young people can thrive with­out the financial burden of transportation costs.

Ms. Whalen emphasized that such programs empower our youth, promoting independence and facilitating greater participation in educational and social activities. Furthermore, Ms. Whalen’s critique of the Childcare B.C. plan draws our attention to the pressing need for more effective and equitable child care solutions in Richmond.

Richmond lags behind in achieving the targets set by affordable child care, impacting families and caretakers who depend on these essential services. In light of this, it is imperative that we, as legislators, reassess our approaches and support initiatives like those proposed by the Richmond Poverty Reduction Coalition. Their recommendation calls for a more holistic and inclusive framework that truly addresses the need of our community, particularly our most vulnerable populations.

Let us take this moment to acknowledge the hard work and dedication of advocates like Deirdre Whalen. Their commitment to public welfare challenges us to match their passion with actionable policy that addres­ses these critical issues.

WATERSHED RESTORATION AND PROTECTION

F. Donnelly: Often in politics you get to work on the things you love, but as Parliamentary Secretary for Watershed Restoration, I’ve been working with First Nations and communities that want to restore watersheds and grow B.C.’s restoration economy.

Healthy watersheds support local economies and create resilient communities. Watersheds like the Fraser, Columbia, Skeena, Taku and the Cowichan produce clean, abun­dant water along with plants and animals we rely on for free until they don’t.

With increasing floods, wildfires and droughts, it’s time to protect the best and restore the rest. Investing in the watershed sector is not only necessary to support growing communities, but economically, B.C. could be a global leader in water solutions where global demand is predicted to reach $1.5 trillion by 2028.

Last year the B.C.–First Nations Water Table announced an unprecedented $100 million investment in healthy watersheds, and we invested $85 million for B.C.’s salmon restoration fund. This year in our budget we invested $103 million to help farmers retain water on their land. These investments demonstrate the tip of the iceberg in terms of opportunities in watershed restoration, Indigenous guardians, water tech and monitoring. But we need other partners at the table, like the federal government, private sector and philanthropy.

Many nations, municipalities and conservation organizations have been hard at it for years, advocating for and restoring watersheds like Cowichan Tribes, Polis, Watersheds B.C., B.C. freshwater legacy, PSF, First Nations Fisheries Council, the LFFA, UFFCA, the Nechako Watershed Roundtable, Watershed Watch, Redd Fish, Raincoast, Rivershed, Resilient Waters, and the list goes on.

Building a strong, water-secure future requires shared approaches to protecting and restoring watersheds. Let’s work together to advance a restoration economy.

[10:30 a.m.]

MOUNT BOUCHERIE BEARS ROBOTICS TEAM

B. Stewart: Last month I celebrated the Mount Bou­cherie Bears robotics team’s first-place finish at the Canadian Pacific Regionals here in Victoria, which earned them a spot in the championships in Houston, Texas.

After the impressive win at the Canadian Pacific Regionals, the team immediately returned to West Kelowna, where they immediately started fundraising on a campaign to cover their travel and expenses to Houston, Texas. Many families and friends donated to the GoFundMe website, while parents coordinated a comedy night fundraiser.

Our thanks go out to the many community and core sponsors, including On Side Restoration, Sundeck railings, Gorman Bros. Lumber and Emil Anderson Group, whose supports were instrumental.

Together with my colleague the MLA for Kelowna-Mission, we were honoured to play a role in helping these bright young minds reach Houston. Watching them, with great anticipation, compete at the first robotics competition last weekend was not just a privilege; it was an inspiring experience.

In Houston, the MBSS team showed remarkable ten­acity and skills. They engaged with many like-minded youth from across the world, all sharing a passion for science, technology, engineering, mathematics and future innovation. The MBSS robotics team, with teacher Mike Boulanger, stood as proud ambassadors for West Kelowna and western Canada, exemplifying gracious professionalism and immense pride.

Before leaving Houston, they were already making plans to grow the team through community outreach, setting their sights on returning to the world championships for years to come. Community support and sponsorship are vital to make their dreams come true. West Kelowna, let’s keep that dream alive.

For those that wish to help, please contact Mount Boucherie Secondary School for more information on how to contribute.

Go, Bears, go!

NORTH SHORE RESCUE
AND NEURODIVERGENCE INCLUSION

S. Chant: I want to acknowledge I am speaking on the territory of the lək̓ʷəŋən people, specifically the Esquimalt and Songhees Nations, and I thank them for the opportunity to live and work here.

Additionally, I am fortunate to live, work and learn on the unceded territory of the səlilwətaɬ and Sḵwx̱wú7mesh Nations when I am in my riding of North Vancouver–Seymour.

Established in 1965, North Shore Rescue stands as one of Canada’s oldest search and rescue teams, providing invaluable support on the local mountains of North and West Vancouver and extending assistance throughout the province, the country and occasionally abroad. Under the leadership of Mike Danks, who is the chief of the North Van district fire service, North Shore Rescue volunteers are prepared to respond to emergencies anytime, anywhere, in any weather, a dedication showcased in their upcoming second season television series.

Over the years, North Shore Rescue has been involved in numerous call-outs pertaining to aiding the neurodivergent community, utilizing ground teams, advanced helicopter flight teams, trained search dogs and forward-looking infrared technology. These operations range from searches for missing individuals on local trails or urban areas to those in the back country, typically initiated due to elopement or accidental separation from groups.

The team’s commitment to readiness and inclusivity is evident in their ongoing efforts to develop inclusive outdoor safety search and rescue educational materials and a video with particular focus on the neurodivergent and developmentally disabled community that is set for release in September of 2024. North Shore Rescue’s journey towards inclusivity has involved formalized autism training, the creation of sensitivity kits for vehicles, revamped guidelines for neurodivergent individuals, specialized search protocols and the integration of new behaviour profiles into search management strategy.

Their dedication ensures that every individual, regardless of their neurodiversity, can be safely reunited with their families.

Gratitude is extended to all North Shore volunteers for their unwavering service.

Oral Questions

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

R. Merrifield: Well, the Premier and the Health Minister have consistently ignored the evidence presented in a leaked memo from Northern Health, as well as the courageous testimonials and voices of nurses. All of these sources reveal that the NDP policy directly supports illicit drug use within hospitals.

Now, a shocking second memo from Island Health has been leaked, dated March 12, 2024, directing acute care staff to not only accommodate but actively support drug use in health facilities.

[10:35 a.m.]

The guidelines in the memo are very clearly worded and are intended to facilitate illicit drug use in the hospital. Here’s what it says: “During admission, expectations, co-create a plan for substance use during admission.”

Why is the Premier actively facilitating open, illicit drug use in our hospitals, and when will he adopt B.C. United’s policy to end his failed and reckless decriminalization experiment?

Hon. A. Dix: The position of the government is that we’ll take all steps to protect all patients in our hospitals and provide them with a high quality of care. In order to support that, there will be one policy, across British Columbia, that lays out the expectations for everyone involved very clearly. Members of the House and others in British Columbia will see that policy soon.

We are working with nurses, health sciences professionals, health care workers and experts in the field to ensure that that protects health care workers, protects patients — all patients — and ensures that people get a high quality of care, including those who are in our hospitals dealing with substance use issues, and we’re going to continue to do so.

Part of that process, surely, is to engage with all patients entering hospital to ensure that they’re supported in every possible way. We’re going to continue to take the steps necessary to protect patients, to protect staff and to protect everyone who has to be, contrary to what they want, admitted into acute care hospitals.

The Speaker: Kelowna-Mission, supplemental.

R. Merrifield: Further study and more delay is not going to fix this. The second leaked internal memo is as shocking as the first, and it’s dated mere weeks ago. The memo instructs staff clearly: “Instead of requiring patients to stop using substances when they access care, staff must work collaboratively with patients.”

It goes further, telling staff to follow patient-identified, substance-use goals in the hospital; provide drug-testing strips; ensure the easy availability of supplies; regularly empty sharps disposal containers; and co-create a plan for substance use during admission.

This memo directly contradicts the Premier’s and the Health Minister’s denials and exposes their claims as false.

Why is the Premier refusing to even admit to the truth, and will he finally adopt B.C. United’s policy to end his disastrous decriminalization experiment?

Hon. A. Dix: We are very clear now that we need to act, in hospitals, in the interests of everybody. Everyone who goes to a hospital deserves the highest quality of care. Everybody who goes to a hospital needs to leave hospital healthier than they went in.

Everybody needs to be protected. That includes people who are in a hospital with no substance use issues at all, with very serious other concerns which you have to have to be admitted to an acute care hospital. It means nurses, doctors, health sciences professionals and health care workers, who work with all patients in our hospitals.

Of course, when people go into a hospital, we have to engage with them, with the health issues that they face. Staff will continue to do that, to provide the utmost possible care to everyone in our hospital.

Let me be clear to everybody. Nobody should have to face secondhand smoke in our hospital. That’s not allowed. It won’t be allowed. It isn’t allowed. Their interests need to be protected.

We have added very significant security staff. I know the opposition is against this.

Interjections.

Hon. A. Dix: Well, they’ve expressed that view in the House.

Some 320 relational security staff to support our health care workers, at the request and recommendation of the BCNU and the HEU and others, and we’ll continue to take those actions.

S. Bond: Well, first of all, let me make the record very clear. The minister knows that just as recently as yesterday, I asked him to make sure that nurses in Merritt and Quesnel had the security that they need and deserve. Let’s get the record straight about who supports what in this Legislature.

[10:40 a.m.]

We should also be clear. The minister stands up and says he’s doing everything possible. I asked him weeks ago to issue a directive to deal with the issue of illicit drug use in hospitals. He refused.

Just when you think it can’t get any worse, the leaked memo, the second one, exposes an even more dangerous directive. Nurses are now, shockingly, being instructed to teach patients how to inject illicit drugs directly into their intravenous lines. The Island Health directive explicitly states: “If a patient has an IV or catheter, provide education on injecting into lines.”

The minister can say it isn’t allowed. It is happening every single day in hospitals across the province.

When is this minister or this Premier going to do the right thing, listen to nurses and health care professionals and end this disastrous decriminalization?

Hon. A. Dix: I’ve been doing exactly that. It’s why…. We put in place the relational security model and added 320 relational security officers at the support and instigation of nurses in British Columbia who were opposed to a privatized model that had been put in place by the previous government.

We are working….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Hon. A. Dix: I have been clear that the rules will be the same in every hospital in B.C. Included in that process are direct discussions we have had with nurses, with health science professionals, with health care workers, with doctors, with ambulance paramedics in B.C. over the last number of months, in the last number of weeks and in the last few days.

We are going to continue to take steps to ensure that the rules are understood, that the rules are applied and that protections for all patients that go in the hospital…. Every one of them deserves care and respect. Every one of them will be enforced and applied, and we’re going to continue to do that.

The Speaker: Prince George–Valemount, supplemental.

S. Bond: For the minister’s information, here’s what the current rules are telling nurses in British Columbia they have to do. Nurses are told to train patients on how to inject illicit drugs into their veins through IV lines. They are told to create a plan for substance use during admission. They are told to facilitate patient-identified substance use goals by providing burner kits with crack pipes and matches.

Does the minister actually think that nurses should be forced to endure daily exposure to aggressive and volatile behaviour and drug use that puts them and patients at risk? It’s time the minister listened to the nurses who are standing up across this province and begging him to do something.

It is time for this minister to acknowledge that those are the rules that are currently in place. He had the opportunity to issue a directive. He refused to do it, leaving our nurses and patients at risk in hospitals.

Will he get up today, do the right thing and end the decriminalization experiment?

Hon. A. Dix: Everyone who is admitted to an acute care hospital deserves the best possible care. Everyone needs to have their interests protected.

Many people, of course, the vast majority, enter with no substance abuse issues but serious health issues. Their interests need to be protected. If someone has a car accident and ends up in hospital, their interest needs to be protected. Everyone’s interests need to be protected. When students come into the hospital, their needs and their interests have to be understood by the care staff, and that will continue to happen.

I’ll tell you, hon. Speaker. Rules will be in place. Rules will be applied.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh.

Hon. A. Dix: What we’re doing and what the….

I know the hon. member for Prince George–Vale­mount meets with nurses. I meet with nurses. Again and again, I hear their views. I hear their passion for supporting their patients and the absolute need…. We have to support nurses and ensure that people are safe — and health sciences professionals and health care workers and ambulance paramedics and people who work in the community.

They all deserve our support and protection, and they will have it.

[10:45 a.m.]

BIOSOLIDS USE AND ORGANIC MATTER
RECYCLING REGULATION

A. Olsen: Yesterday was Earth Day. So it’s important that the Minister of Environment answer some questions about our environment.

In 2011, the current Minister of Environment wrote to the Saanich Peninsula Wastewater Commission, asking us to maintain a ban on the land application of biosolids within the capital regional district. I was a member of that commission. I was a commissioner on the commission that the minister wrote, encouraging…. I agreed with the minister, and my vote on the record reflects that.

There was strong evidence then, just as there is strong evidence now, that the accumulation of pharmaceuticals, personal care products and PFAS — perfluoroalkyls, polyfluoroalkyls — can accumulate and concentrate in bio­solids. PFAS are also known as forever chemicals. They’re dangerous to human health and the environment. Scientific evidence showed 13 years ago that we should be concerned, and the evidence has only strengthened on that matter.

Instead of updating the organic matter regulation, this Minister of Environment, in 2019, wrote to the CRD re­quiring them to consider the land application of biosolids. It’s unacceptable that the Minister of Environment permits the toxic material to be applied to lands across the province.

My question is to the Minister of Environment. Will he immediately update the organic matter regulation and require this to be before the end of this parliamentary session?

Hon. G. Heyman: Thank you to the member for the question.

There are a lot of complicated issues related to biosolids. As the member noted, he supported previous direction from the ministry for a number of reasons. One of which is that we want the most beneficial use. Another of which is that we want to ensure that we are not adding to greenhouse gas emissions by simply landfilling biosolids.

We are working with regional districts to find beneficial uses. We are also updating, on a regular basis, our information and data about the presence of contaminants of concern in biosolids and constantly updating our standards in that regard.

The Speaker: Member, supplemental.

A. Olsen: I didn’t say that I previously supported the ministry. What I said was….

I previously agreed with the minister when he was the executive director of the Sierra Club, when he was writing to the Saanich Peninsula Wastewater Commission, en­couraging us to maintain a ban on the land application of biosolids. That’s what I was supporting. It was the minister, in his former role, with his former belief that we should not be applying biosolids on the land.

The minister has been responsible for the Ministry of Environment for the past seven years, and he has been negligent in updating the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. In fact, we knew 13 years ago that the regulation was grossly inadequate. It remains the same today.

In 2011, we demanded the CRD and the province operate from the precautionary principle on biosolids. That’s basically what we’re requesting the Minister of Environment do now, more than a decade later. Instead, the minister has deployed the opposite approach, failing to modernize the OMR and failing to require the proper testing of that material.

He said to my colleague in budget estimates just last week that he was going to amend it so the director could require sampling. How is it that we’re not having basic sampling of this waste material?

My question is, again, to the Minister of Environment. Will he require the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation to be updated before this place adjourns and goes to another election and we go into another parliament where this Minister of Environment has failed to protect the interests of our environment and the citizens of British Columbia?

Hon. G. Heyman: What I would say to the member, and to all members of this House, is…. We are constantly updating our information base. We are constantly updating our regulations. We take the concerns of British Columbians in communities around the province very seriously. It is difficult to satisfy everyone.

The fact is, as a society, we produce contaminants. We need to address them in the best way possible. We need to ensure that we are protecting all of our communities against climate change and simply burying the problem.

[10:50 a.m.]

I receive regular reports from staff on their progress with the Organic Matter Recycling Regulation. We are looking at it. As I mentioned earlier, we are reviewing the science and searching for more science on contaminants of emerging concern.

We’ll continue that work. That work will continue today, next week, and it will continue with governments in future mandates.

RECOGNITION OF ABORIGINAL TITLE
AND POTENTIAL COMPENSATION

J. Rustad: Now that Bill 25 is before the House, this bill sets out an unprecedented recognition of Aboriginal title underneath private land. That has never been done before. According to case law, recognition or alienation of Aboriginal title requires compensation.

My question, quite frankly, is to the Minister of Finance. Since there is going to be Aboriginal title recognized under private land, and there is undetermined Aboriginal title right across this province, how much is the minister putting aside, in the recognition of Aboriginal title, in all areas across this province that will be alienating private land?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you to my colleague for the question.

Yesterday’s historic recognition of Aboriginal title in Haida Gwaii was unprecedented. Never before has a bill been introduced to do what the courts have asked us to do. Never before in our history have we not responded to a court case but, rather, introduced a bill to address….

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Also, Minister, this bill is in front of the House, so I don’t think we should be dealing with this in question period.

Member, if you have another question, we’ll take that.

J. Rustad: Hon. Speaker, the issue is not the bill that’s before the House. I respect your guidance on this. The issue is Aboriginal title being recognized and the fact that Aboriginal title could exist anywhere around this province.

The precedent has now been set. This is going to create a tremendous amount of liability for the province of British Columbia — for example, in downtown Vancouver or downtown Victoria, anywhere around the province.

The question around this: with this liability that is now being created, has the Minister of Finance put aside money in a budget associated with this, but more importantly, is this NDP government planning to do this onto taxpayers, or are they going to put that burden onto the landowners themselves?

Hon. M. Rankin: Thank you for the opportunity to respond to this question.

Yesterday’s introduction of Bill 25 was about the specific request that we settle a lawsuit in order to recognize Aboriginal title in British Columbia. There was no commensurate requirement for compensation sought during that time.

Under treaty, of course, we do have fiscal arrangements that the governments of Canada and British Columbia enter into and pass, by legislation at both the federal and provincial level, in which compensation going forward is the case. Redress is often requested, but that was not the subject of yesterday’s bill, and that will not be forthcoming as a consequence of Bill 25.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND ILLICIT DRUG USE IN
HEALTH CARE FACILITIES

E. Sturko: Just like the first leaked health authority memo, the memo from Island Health tells nurses, “Offer supplies, and ensure they are easily accessible,” actively promoting drug use within hospitals.

Moreover, acute care nurses who encounter patients using illicit substances are explicitly instructed to stand by and allow them to finish. A frustrated nurse highlights the NDP hypocrisy: “We are handing out supplies, and then we get mad…for smoking in the hospital. We give them the equipment.”

Why is the Premier distributing crack pipes and nee­dles, sponsoring drug use inside hospitals instead of ending his disastrous policy and protecting health care workers?

Hon. A. Dix: What we’re doing is taking specific actions to ensure that everybody in the hospital is safe and gets a high quality of care.

I would say this starts with, as well, people who enter the hospital who have no substance abuse issues. They deserve a high quality of care. They deserve to have a smoke-free environment. They deserve to be protected equally. Staff and their interests need to be protected as well.

[10:55 a.m.]

People who come into the hospital with addiction is­sues…. Of course, when anyone ever comes into the hospital with issues, we need health care professionals to know what those issues are, so that they can address those issues.

What we are doing, and what we’ll have in British Columbia, are clear rules everywhere. The rules are the same in Fort St. John as they are in Comox, as they are in Vancouver, as they are in Cranbrook, so that everybody understands what the rules are, that we will continue to support our staff through actions like the relational security measure and that people will know, for example, that it is not allowed to smoke in hospital, not allowed to do those things.

We will be very clear, and it is our absolute intention to continue to enforce that.

The Speaker: Surrey South, supplemental.

REPORT ON SAFE DRUG SUPPLY
AND DIVERSION TO ILLICIT MARKET

E. Sturko: Not everyone is getting high-quality care. Not everyone is safe in the hospital. The NDP have absolutely handcuffed the ability to deal with these problems through decriminalization.

Regardless of this minister saying that it’s not allowed, it is happening. The NDP’s failed decriminalization policy in our hospitals has been an unmitigated disaster, stripping police of their ability to do anything about the chaos. The Premier has turned hospitals and pharmacies into drug-dealing hot spots, and he has placed communities at risk.

Yesterday I raised that the NDP is concealing a secret report by Dr. Jonathan Caulkins. Additional information that we’ve received says that that report looks at the NDP’s legalization of hard drugs in British Columbia.

Will the Premier table Dr. Caulkins’s report today and end his failed experiment of taxpayer-funded drug trafficking and decriminalization?

Hon. A. Dix: Yesterday, numerous opposition members asserted that the Premier had commissioned such a report. He hadn’t. Presumably, they know that he hadn’t, because the question is framed differently today.

Interjection.

The Speaker: Member.

Minister will continue.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. The minister has the floor.

Minister will continue.

Hon. A. Dix: The members of the House will know that Dr. Bonnie Henry, the provincial health officer, under her authority, is doing a review of these policies. A report was issued on February 1. She said very publicly at that time that there’d be a follow-up report in the next four or five months.

As part of that work, she commissioned Dr. Caulkins to do a paper on issues related to the economics of safe supply, which seems like a normal thing to do.

Dr. Caulkins — I wasn’t familiar with this work or this commissioning but do know…

Interjections.

The Speaker: Shhh, Members. Members.

Minister.

Hon. A. Dix: …that Dr. Henry commissioned this re­port. Her report will be coming out, it’s our expectation, in May or June. There will be appendices to that report, and this research paper will be provided as part of that.

She’s seeking this work because Dr. Henry reaches out to different opinions and wants different opinions on the subject to support her work that she does on behalf of the people of British Columbia, what you’d expect her to do. That’s why the report was commissioned. It will be made public at the time of Dr. Henry’s next report to the public on this issue.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND COMMUNITY SAFETY ISSUES

T. Wat: The NDP MLA for Richmond-Queensborough boasted just two weeks ago, “Decriminalization works,” but that’s not true. This NDP’s drug experiment has un­leashed crime, chaos and disorder. Police are now powerless because of this NDP legalized drug use in hospitals, in parks and on beaches.

Residents of Richmond reject the NDP’s reckless drug consumption sites and decriminalization policy.

Why won’t the Premier end his failed experiment and accept B.C. United’s plan to protect our community?

[11:00 a.m.]

Hon. J. Whiteside: Look, I think what all British Columbians agree on is that we need to move away from criminalizing people who are struggling with addictions. This is particularly critical at this time, given the devastating impacts of the toxic drug crisis, and decriminalization is a tool that helps us achieve that.

It is a tool that we put in place in concert with partners in law enforcement and health care and our municipal partners to achieve that end. It is a tool that had support from all members of this House, including the member who raised the question.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members will wait for their turn.

Minister….

Members. Members will come to order.

Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin, wait for your turn.

The minister will continue.

Hon. J. Whiteside: It is troubling to see members say one thing one day and another thing another day when it comes to this issue.

In a circumstance where we lost seven British Colum­bians yesterday, we will lose seven British Columbians today, and we will lose seven tomorrow, and that is because every single jurisdiction across the country, across the continent is dealing with a poisoned….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, it’s not very smart to interrupt others, please.

Member, it’s not funny either. Member for Skeena.

Next question. The minister will complete….

Hon. J. Whiteside: I will continue, potentially without interruption.

The question was asked about decriminalization. I un­derstand that British Columbians want us both to shift away from criminalizing people who are struggling with addictions who need to be connected to care and, at the same time, of course, they don’t want to give up their public spaces in that process.

The Speaker: Thank you.

Hon. J. Whiteside: We are taking action to ensure that we work with our policing partners so that they have the tools that they need and so that we work with our health care system to ensure that British Columbians have access to the care that they need.

That is why we have a record expansion of treatment services across the province. That is why we have introduced legislation around public use. That’s work that we will continue to do with our partners…

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

Hon. J. Whiteside: …to ensure that in the context of this public health emergency, we protect British Columbians.

The Speaker: Thank you, Minister.

The minister will take her seat.

DRUG DECRIMINALIZATION PROGRAM
AND GOVERNMENT ACTION ON ISSUES

P. Milobar: I guess I will have to combine two questions into one after that four-minute non-answer.

Let’s be clear. This government applied to the federal government for a decriminalization certificate before the committee had even been struck to talk about decriminalization. It was also part of their….

Now, I know this government has a problem following through on campaign promises, but decrim was actually in their 2020 campaign as well about fast-tracking decriminalization. This is all on the Premier and this government. Every single day the evidence keeps mounting and mounting about their failed decriminalization policies that they’ve put in place.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members, let’s….

P. Milobar: They have not enacted the other things that they should have around safeguards, around making sure that health care workers felt safe, around making sure that people that share a two- or a four-bed ward in a hospital room aren’t having to endure meth, crack and fentanyl being smoked in their room or supplies being forced to be given out by health care professionals or having to watch addicts inject themselves with their own intravenous systems based on guidance by health care professionals on memos provided by health authorities.

We now have 205 health authorities providing that guidance, yet the minister wants to pretend it’s not actually happening. It is absolutely a failure in every single way.

Let’s look at these last few weeks in this session. The Land Act. B.C. United….

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. All members. Members.

P. Milobar: The Government House Leader seems a little offended.

The Speaker: Members, shhh. Calm down.

Member, continue.

[11:05 a.m.]

P. Milobar: B.C. United puts pressure on the government about the Land Act. Poof! It magically disappears.

B.C. United is putting pressure on Bill 12. Just yesterday the Attorney General and Premier were adamant that Bill 12 was going to keep moving forward. Today, poof! It magically disappears.

The Speaker: Question.

P. Milobar: Well, B.C. United has been putting pressure on this government to end decriminalization today. If they won’t end it today, will they at least be consistent and end it tomorrow?

Hon. R. Kahlon: Speaking of pressure, first the Leader of the Opposition supports our initiatives to ensure their safety in Surrey, for Surrey police. Then the B.C. Conservatives come along and change the position.

Interjections.

Hon. R. Kahlon: Oh no, no. They were happy to talk about pressure a moment ago.

Interjections.

The Speaker: Members. Members.

Members will come to order now, and the House Leader will conclude his remarks.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I will conclude my remarks by saying this. The members are talking about pressure. We clearly know where the pressure is coming for them.

Every single day, our priority in this government is to support British Columbians — support people when they go to the hospital, ensure that we’re saving people’s lives, because we’re seeing far too many of our loved ones pass away from this overdose crisis.

It’s important work. We’re committed to making sure it’s happening in British Columbia. All of my colleagues on this side feel this pressure every single day, making sure our constituents know that we are going to continue to support them during these challenging times.

[End of question period.]

Tabling Documents

The Speaker: Members, I have the honour of tabling the B.C. Ombudsperson special report No. 56, systemic investigation update, Alone: The Prolonged and Repeated Isolation of Youth in Custody.

Petitions

S. Chant: I have the honour of presenting a petition to the assembly, from approximately 1,200 people across British Columbia, requesting to amend the Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act to add an advanced request for MAiD option to part 2.1, “Advance directives.”

The signees recognize that this is also being dealt with at the federal level, but they just want to make sure that the province understands their concerns in this area.

Orders of the Day

Hon. R. Kahlon: In the main chamber, I call third reading on Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act.

In the Douglas Fir Committee Room, I call Committee of the Whole, Bill 19, Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act.

In the Birch Committee Room, I call Committee of Supply for the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 3 — BUDGET MEASURES
IMPLEMENTATION ACT, 2024

Bill 3, Budget Measures Implementation Act, 2024, read a third time and passed on division.

Hon. R. Kahlon: I call second reading of Bill 22, the bubble zone act.

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 22 — SAFE ACCESS TO SCHOOLS ACT

Hon. N. Sharma: I move that the bill be now read a second time.

In 2023, we saw an escalation in disruptive protests and demonstrations occurring in and around our K-to-12 schools. In addition to interfering with educational activities, this behaviour can be harmful to the students and staff who need to be at schools. Here we are talking about staff who have dedicated themselves to creating a safe, inclusive learning environment, who should be able to enter schools to do their jobs without being harassed or intimidated by protesters.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

[11:10 a.m.]

We are talking about families of students who should feel safe accessing the school and know that when they drop off their children for a day at school, they will be attending a safe, welcoming school without fear of disruption and potentially harmful protests happening there.

Here, of course, we are talking about K-to-12 students, children who range in age from older teens, who may have a range of different needs and vulnerabilities, down to four- and five-year-old kindergartners, who are still young and vulnerable and need a safe and secure school environment. Regardless of their age, all students need to have a safe, welcoming and accessible learning environment, which is exactly what K-to-12 schools are meant to be.

Most British Columbians recognize that these protests and demonstrations at K-to-12 schools, that risk harming children or making them feel unwelcome in their own schools, are wrong. Making staff feel intimidated and harassed is wrong. Impeding access to education is wrong.

The proposed Safe Access to Schools Act will make it clear to everyone that this behaviour cannot continue in and around K-to-12 schools. Students, parents or guardians and staff are entitled to access schools without having to face protests and demonstrations. No one should be scared to go to a school. This bill aims to preserve safe, unimpeded access to learning environments for students and staff and to safeguard their health, safety and well-being.

The proposed legislation would give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the power to establish access zones at schools if necessary to protect the well-being of students and staff and to preserve safe, unimpeded access to schools. In most cases, these access zones will cover the school, the land on which the school is located and a 20-metre buffer zone around the perimeter.

With an access zone, the following behaviour will be prohibited: impeding access to or egress from the school, disrupting educational programs and extracurricular school activities, protests trying to advise or persuade a person to refrain from participating in or providing an educational program, intimidating someone, or doing or saying anything that could reasonably be expected to cause concern for a person’s physical and mental safety.

These behavioural prohibitions have been designed to address the harmful and disruptive behaviours that have no place in and around K-to-12 schools. They make it clear that protests should not happen in and around schools. This bill is designed to protect students, allowing them to access schools and receive an education without being subject to intimidation and harassment by protesters. It also protects staff, who are instrumental in providing educational programs to those students and deserve to be protected at their place of work.

Protesters are free to make their views heard in other, more appropriate places. People accessing schools or pro­viding education should not be forced to endure the harmful effects of the protesters’ disruptive behaviour. Protests at school turn vulnerable children into captive audiences. This behaviour cannot continue.

To ensure effective protection for students and staff and to preserve access to education, the bill includes an en­forcement mechanism for those who contravene the proposed legislation. It will authorize police officers to make warrantless arrests to stop people from contravening the act. It will also provide a statutory basis to apply for injunctive relief to restrain a person from contravening the proposed legislation.

The bill includes specific exemptions that apply to students and people working in schools. In general, these exemptions are intended to ensure that the act does not prohibit behaviour that may ordinarily occur as part of the delivery of an educational program. Lawful strikes, lockouts and picketing within the meaning of the Labour Relations Code are also not prohibited by this proposed legislation.

The prohibitions contained in the bill are content-neutral and do not prohibit protests and demonstrations only on specific topics or issues. Access to education is to be preserved, no matter what issue is motivating the disruptive or harmful behaviour.

To minimize the impacts on rights and freedoms while achieving the goal of protecting students and staff from harm and disruptions, the bill does not restrict protests and demonstrations everywhere, but only in access zones on and around K-to-12 schools, which only come into effect if the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council establishes them, by regulation.

These access zones are limited in size and are only in effect during specific times when students and staff are likely to be present for educational programs and extracurricular school activities. The proposed legislation would also give the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council the flexibility to adjust the area and effective times for access zones.

[11:15 a.m.]

Finally, the proposed act will only be in force for a limited period. It is set to be repealed on July 1, 2026, or earlier by regulation. This proposed legislation is not necessary to regulate the conduct of most people, because most people appreciate the importance of education to our children, and they know that a K-to-12 school is not an appropriate place to stage disruptive protests.

Ultimately, a small segment of the population has acted in a way that has disrupted our education system and negatively impacted students and staff within that system. We can’t let this kind of behaviour continue. It is for these reasons that we are introducing this bill.

S. Furstenau: I rise to speak to Bill 22, the Safe Access to Schools Act.

I appreciate the comments of the Attorney General in introducing this legislation. I agree with her that the vast majority of people understand that a school is a place for kids to go to access education, to be in a caring and nurturing environment and to feel safe. Kids learn best when they feel safe. They learn when they feel cared for. They learn when they feel like they don’t have to worry about other things; they can just focus on their learning.

As a society, I think we can agree to some basic expectations of the adults in society around what that environment should be for kids. It should not be a place where adults are having heated debates about public policy. There are appropriate places for that. There are lots of appropriate places for heated debates about public policy, but schools are not one of those places.

As a parent, the last thing I want to be thinking about when I’m dropping my child off to school is: “Are they going to be subject to intimidation? Are they going to be subject to somebody yelling at them about something that they may or may not have any idea what it’s about?”

Because the only job my kid has going to school is going to learn, going to be with friends, going to be part of a social fabric, going to learn, ultimately, how to be in a society, how to care about other people, how to care about all other people, regardless of that person’s identity or that person’s race or that person’s gender. School is the environment where we teach and demonstrate what it means to be in a society where we respect the inherent human rights of every person.

In a democratic society, there’s lots and lots of opportunity for debate on public policy. There are many ways that people can engage in that — everything from showing up to vote at an election, to participating in groups, to participating in protests, to working to get elected themselves. There are so many avenues in a democracy to have those conversations and those debates about public policy, but a school ground is not one of those places.

I support this legislation, and I hope that it never has to be used. I appreciate there being an expiry on it. I hope that as a society, we can find ways to engage in debates that don’t involve harassment and intimidation of children or teachers or school administrators or parents, because that’s an inappropriate place. I just wanted to rise and speak to this as a parent, as a teacher, as a legislator.

I will say this. As a teacher, in particular, arriving at school every morning…. Many, many things on my mind when I would arrive at school every morning. How are my students doing? Are my lessons ready to go? Do I have the resources I need? Did my students get enough food this morning? Are there going to be any issues at the school that I need to think about? Do we have an assembly? Are the kids ready for that? There are so many things.

[11:20 a.m.]

What a teacher shouldn’t have to face when they arrive at school is a heated debate over any kind of public policy, because that’s not the role that they’re playing. They’re there to deliver curriculum, to create a safe environment, a nurturing environment and a place where kids and students can effectively learn not just the curriculum, but learn how to be good citizens in a democratic society.

That’s a lesson that all of us need to lean into all the time. How do we be the best citizens? How do we take issues that we might have, public policy questions that we might have, and approach those in constructive and effective ways? How do we have conversations that don’t involve yelling at people, have conversations that don’t involve denying human rights of people, have conversations that are curious and inquisitive, instead of starting at a place of: “I am right, and you are wrong”? That’s not public discourse. That’s not effective public debate.

I just wanted to put it on the record that I support this legislation and hope that it doesn’t ever have to be used.

M. Lee: On behalf of the official opposition, I will be the designated speaker on this bill, if needed. I have listened carefully to the Attorney General’s comments on second reading here on this bill.

Thank you to the Leader of the Third Party for adding her perspective, certainly as a parent, about children in school spaces. I certainly share that concern.

I will say, at the outset of this bill, that we continue to see the kinds of acts of intimidation that the Attorney General spoke to. They affect members of the LGBTQ2S+ community, Indigenous peoples, people of colour, people of religious beliefs and faiths. And children, of course, of all backgrounds, not just in K to 12, but in community places, community gathering centres, community centres, places of worship, gurdwaras, synagogues, mosques, university campuses.

Of course, we saw the extension, in the face of the pandemic, to the Access to Services (COVID-19) Act. This is a bill and an act that I’ll come back to. I appreciate that the act was repealed by design on July 1, 2023. And this bill also has a similar repeal date under section 9: July 1, 2026.

The government here, with three and a half weeks left to go in this legislative process, has brought forward this bill, that they did refer to in their throne speech, to deal with a specific concern — but in a time-limited way. Also, as the Attorney General referred to, in terms of Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, by regulation, designating and establishing access zones for a school or a class of schools.

Even as this bill passes, if it does, it’s still over to the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council to specify the access zones that we’re talking about, the 20-metre zone outside the school property.

[11:25 a.m.]

This has a very specific time-limited, by-choice, after-the-fact application. If the government sees a real need today, it should be acting today, not giving itself the ability to pick and choose access zones to follow. If there’s a real need, the government should be specific and go after that need.

I can have and I certainly will speak to a number of other needs, I believe. If we’re talking about safe access, safe places for our children, if that’s what we’re talking about, then I see that certainly applicable to other places.

That is just my introductory comment about some of the considerations around this bill. But I know that when the bill was first introduced on first reading, the immediate reaction from the Leader of the Official Opposition was that this is just another example of some sort of performative activity by this government. We saw that on Bill 12. The Premier stood up with the Attorney General, with those who suffered from social online harms. And we all recognize the impact it has on our children.

Deputy Speaker: Member, we’re talking about Bill 22. The appropriate time for Bill 12….

M. Lee: Well, all I’m demonstrating, though, Mr. Chair, is the performative nature of this government.

Deputy Speaker: One second, Member. Member, this is not a debate with the Chair. I’m just stating that the rules suggest that you should speak to Bill 22, not Bill 12 at this stage. Thank you.

M. Lee: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The performative nature of this bill by this government is endemic and another example through this Bill 22, because it has a very limited approach. It says it’s going to deal with safe access to schools yet doesn’t specify immediate application. It’s about access zones to schools or classes of schools to come. Well, I think the government should tell us which schools or class of schools this bill is going to apply to. Why isn’t it in this statute?

I can tell you, Mr. Speaker, that when we look at the point of reference, which I would expect this bill is modelled after, the Access to Services (COVID-19) Act, it spelled it out. It talked about the classes of protected COVID-19 testing sites, COVID-19 vaccination sites, protected hospitals, protected schools and, of course, the catch-all prescribed facilities. I appreciate that there is a general, by-way-of-regulation ability to designate further facilities for which that Access to Services Act was being designed and brought forward to address.

So we do have a past example from this government about a broader, more effective, immediate application of safe access. I will say again, by way of introduction, that the access to services to facilities includes hospitals, schools and other prescribed facilities. This is an example of a broader application when we’re talking about safe access.

I understand the specific need to address children not being intimidated, or their families, when they drop off their children, if that’s what they do, or if they’re walking their children to school, if they’re cycling to school, or coming on the bus.

[11:30 a.m.]

Nobody wants to see the places of education and learning being threatened and undermined in the way that we’ve seen. I will say that when we talk about an example of that, beyond the scope of this bill, which is what I’d like to speak to, is that there are other needs that we’ve seen. One example that comes to mind is Hillel House at UBC.

Hillel House at UBC has been a safe place for students on campus at the University of British Columbia. This place has had recent examples of both trespass coming into the building and protest outside the building, blocking entrance to the building, blocking access to the building.

This is a place of learning and support and understanding on the University of British Columbia campus. This is a place that has been under pressure, as I have addressed with this government in the past, by resolutions brought forward to the student society, the AMS, that I was a former president of. I understand the im­portance of student voice, but this is a place of intimidation. This is what we’ve seen on this particular university campus at that particular place.

This is a place, by way of example, that we are talking about our children, students who come to learn, who come to access their education and look for the supports of that school facility amongst people of common faith and beliefs, who are being met with, every day, acts of intimidation, acts of targeting.

This is a real concern. I know that as we’ve looked at…. There have been submissions — advocacy, for example, by the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, as the advocacy agent for the Jewish Federation of Canada and Jewish Federation of Vancouver.

We have seen the importance of looking at these places to ensure that we’re protecting ethnocultural facilities and religious institutions. We’ve seen that in the context, in the continued aftermath that we continue to address, of the October 7 Hamas terrorist attack on the people of Israel. In that context, we have seen so much damage done to our province, to our community, to the feeling of safety and security and acceptance in the communities that we have, including in Vancouver.

This is the reason why, when we’re talking about a bill that is talking to the importance of safe access, that the bill should actually address what we’re seeing today.

I give the example of Hillel House because it is a place that is under significant pressure. Those students who go to UBC every day are facing that intimidation and that threat and the feeling that they aren’t safe. The parents that I hear from of those students look at that academic institution and are concerned for their children, every day. This is the reason why, when this government chooses to have a narrow focus, we need to understand what that focus is.

[11:35 a.m.]

I would encourage the government, in the course of our second reading debates to follow on this bill, as other members of the government speak to this bill and as the Attorney General wraps her comments on this bill, to have the government give us that understanding about what the particular focuses are for this bill.

I invite them to comment further, because by design, it’s not in the bill. By design, it’s going to come after the fact. I’m giving just one example about Hillel House, which should be addressed, because it’s real.

I would like to understand from the government what exact form of protest they are looking to address. Because if they’re only focused on K to 12 and the 20-metre zone, well, right now, under the School Act, there are provisions. There are provisions under the School Act currently that speak to some of this.

I admit and would acknowledge that this bill takes it further, that there is an ability here to use what’s contemplated in the bill in terms of arrests without warrant and injunctive relief. But we know that in the School Act itself, under sections 70 and 177….

If we take 177, for example, under the current School Act, we have provisions that deal with the fact that a person must not disturb or interrupt the proceedings of a school. “A person who is directed to leave the land or premises of a school by the principal, vice principal, director of instruction or person authorized by the board to make that direction (a) must immediately leave the land and premises, and (b) must not enter on the land and premises….”

A person who contravenes those two subsections I just referred to commits an offence. A principal, vice principal or director of instruction of a school or a person authorized by the board may, in order to restore order on school premises, require adequate assistance from a peace officer.

This particular framework under section 177 of the School Act currently exists, and it currently would address many of what I understand to be the concerns of this government when we talk about K to 12. We have existing provisions under the School Act that can actually deal with this.

This is another reason why I say…. I agree with the Leader of Official Opposition when he calls this just another bill of performative measures by this government.

We’re talking about jamming in legislation near the end of this session, dealing with very significant fundamental shifts. We saw that potential with the Land Act amendments. We saw it with Bill 12, the health care costs recovery act. We see it with the Legal Professions Act, Bill 21, still to come. These are examples of fundamental pieces of legislation that are the broad, sweeping nature of government.

This particular bill has a particular purpose to it. I’m still trying to understand what it is, because we have other needs in the community, and we already have provisions in the School Act that address many of the concerns that this government says exist in schools, on school grounds, on the land and premises of schools themselves.

We’ve also seen, of course…. I’ll comment on this part of it as well, since I mentioned section 70 of the School Act.

We have section 70, which deals with chairs or other members presiding at meetings of boards. They may expel from the meeting a person, other than a trustee, who the presiding member considers guilty of improper conduct. A majority of the trustees present at a meeting of the board may expel a trustee from the meeting for improper conduct. A person who disturbs, interrupts or disquiets the proceedings of a meeting of a board commits an offence.

[11:40 a.m.]

This brings to mind other examples of intimidation and disruption that we’ve seen in public meetings. We’ve seen this in several municipalities, including in the Tri-Cities. We have seen disruptive behaviour, interruptions of council proceedings, acts of intimidation. These are not safe places.

I understand the importance of freedom of expression. I certainly support it, and I know all members of this House do. This is the reason why we have the debate, unless the government brings closure. This is the reason why we have the opportunity to have the kind of review. This is the reason why we need to work through these pieces of legislation and have a clear understanding.

This is another example of what’s happening in municipal town halls. Councillors are feeling personally threat­ened for their safety.

When we are talking about safe access…. What about those citizens who want to participate at town halls and feel threatened, by their participation, for who they identify as?

I am very concerned about the targeting, the intimidation and the identification of certain members of our communities. This is the reason why children are not wearing their school uniforms when they go to school. They want to hide their identity. Their parents are concerned about their identity.

This is what our society has come to. This is the reason why, when we’re talking about…. We will have the opportunity, I appreciate, in Bill 23, when we’re talking about systemic racism, Islamophobia, antisemitism in our society….

This government is talking about action plans. We need action now. We need a plan now. We don’t need mere announcements of particular educational measures or funding for security.

Again, I appreciate and recognize the importance of those things. But that’s not a plan. This is not a plan. This bill attempts to address a particular purpose, which the government needs to be clear about, when there are so many other needs. There are so many other needs for children who are not feeling safe in their communities.

This bill, also, does not apply, for example, to religious institutions. When I go out to the mosque, one of the mosques I’ve been to, when I’ve been invited, for various gatherings, with members of the government caucus and other members of the opposition here, is the one in Delta, on River Road. I know, with great pride, that mosque talks about the buildup of the school and the learning and instruction facilities and the classrooms that they continue to build out and utilize. This is an example of a religious institution and place that is not covered by this bill.

This is a concern. This is a concern about these places, these places like that particular mosque or the synagogue in my riding, in Vancouver-Langara, Temple Sholom, like so many other places of worship — Catholic churches, where my father taught catechism at St. Anthony of Padua at 70th and Granville; Saints Peter and Paul at 37th and Cartier in my riding.

These are other examples where children come on a regular basis, typically on a Sunday, sometimes on a weekday. I know that at Temple Sholom, it’s on a Wednesday night as well. They come to learn. This is the reason why at Temple Sholom, particularly since October 7, there have been volunteer security officers.

[11:45 a.m.]

I have talked about that. I’ve talked about community leaders spending their time in the face of this current situation, this war, helping to keep their own children safe, as they attend religious studies for their faith.

We have seen, regrettably, those types of acts of intimidation outside a Jewish community school, at least on two occasions. Police, as I understand it, were called in to address that.

Thank goodness for the support and the continued service of the Vancouver police department. I know the Jewish community in Vancouver continues to be, for example, grateful for that.

But when we are talking about this bill and the opportunity to create safe places, beyond just the narrow, performative measure of this bill, with undefined purpose; with school zones and schools to be defined and identified to follow, not in this bill; with no real application or effectiveness…. We need action from this government. We need a bill that will actually effectively deal with the concerns of parents and children today.

I give these examples of the ways that this Bill 22 falls far short. These are examples that we’ll need to continue to probe at the committee stage as well.

I would say that the concern around intimidation that the Attorney General spoke to…. A bill of this nature has the opportunity to send a clear signal — a clear signal that our schools, our community centres, ethnocultural community places, religious institutions of learning for our children, are not to be targets.

It’s more than just a protest or holding up a sign in front of one of these places to share his or her viewpoint. It’s more than that. It’s talking about groups, individuals, who are targeting these places — places of vulnerability, when it comes to our children — to send a message of intimidation and threat. It goes to the very heart of what this government should be addressing, which is the safety of our children not just in K to 12, not just by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council after this bill.

To block access to any of these places is an act of intimidation. And for certain racialized communities, we need to walk through that. We need to understand the focus around certain types of communities in our province and why there seems to be a disparity in focus, by this government, on those groups.

I’m not just talking about double standard here. I’m talking about where there’s immediate action versus when there’s not immediate action. This is the reason why Bill 22 needs to be carefully examined for what it is.

As we look at the actual provisions in clause 2 of this bill, just to give some indication of some of the other areas to probe at committee stage, and we talk about access being protected….

[The Speaker in the chair.]

[11:50 a.m.]

The question arises, which is important, because of this subsequent determination by the Lieutenant-Governor-in-Council, whether that specific access needs to be im­peded in the course of a protest, which is a time-measured way, versus a particular, continued activity, by a single individual, impeding, disrupting, protesting or interfering with access of that space.

Mr. Speaker, seeing you there and noting the hour, I will reserve my place in the debate and move adjournment of debate.

M. Lee moved adjournment of debate.

Motion approved.

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

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

Hon. L. Beare moved adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.

The House adjourned at 11:51 a.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 19 — CHILDREN AND FAMILY
DEVELOPMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2024

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section A) on Bill 19; R. Leonard in the chair.

The committee met at 11:13 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members.

I call Committee of the Whole on Bill 19, Children and Family Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2024, to order.

On clause 1.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister and staff.

I think we have about a half an hour to get through the bill. We’ll do our best.

On clause 1, would the minister please provide the House with the rationale for the changes to definitions re­moving “statutory” and replacing it with “director’s” duty, power, and power or duty agreement?

[11:15 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Just before I answer, I want to take the opportunity to introduce the folks that are here with me.

I have David Galbraith, who is Deputy Minister of MCFD. Emily Horton is an assistant deputy minister. Behind me, I have Alex Stevanovic and Patrick Tucker. I’m grateful for their assistance in this work and for being here today.

The change that the member has asked about is about broadening the powers that can come under a section 6 agreement. This was done because…. Statutory powers were originally in Bill 38. From connecting with nations, with Indigenous governing bodies, and hearing from our partners….

The powers that are of most interest to nations, to IGBs, are actually those that are held by directors. What we’re doing here is broadening the powers that can go under a section 6 to include the things that have more direct impacts on the lives of children, youth, families and communities and are the powers the IGBs told us they want to work together on.

N. Letnick: Thank you to the minister.

Could the minister maybe expand a little bit on which IGBs she heard from and consulted with? What First Nations groups were consulted before introducing this legislation?

Hon. G. Lore: A couple of things to the member here.

Broader work with nations on various steps and pathways to jurisdiction helped illuminate some of the limitations of confining section 6 agreements to statutory powers. There was also a specific request from the First Nations Leadership Council on this topic.

We sent 204 letters out to nations. I talked to 27 nations through 11 engagement sessions. In particular, Gwa’sala-’Nakwaxda’xw has been interested in a section 6 agreement. Through those conversations and negotiations, it was clear that some of the powers and responsibilities and authorities that we could put under a section 6 were not currently covered and required this expansion and broadening.

[11:20 a.m.]

N. Letnick: Would it be fair to say, then, that this bill is here because of the input of one First Nation?

Hon. G. Lore: No, that wouldn’t be fair to say. Again, 27 Nations through 11 engagements. The request originated with the First Nations Leadership Council. We’ve heard broad support in our engagements for this broadening and expansion of powers under section 6.

E. Ross: This is a topic I’ve covered over 20 years. I actually proposed this to my own band, in terms of taking over the responsibility of children in care. My band council rejected it mainly because of liability.

At the time, money wasn’t really an issue for us, mainly because of LNG revenues and forestry revenues. We had the ability to fund it ourselves if we wanted to do it. But there were so many technicalities that were involved. We didn’t understand the division of power. And I assume that’s what we’re talking about here today, in terms of the information that will be shared with First Nations.

Can I ask a very general question? In terms of the overall funding of this, is this coming through a transfer payment from Ottawa to B.C., or is this entirely coming out of the B.C. budget?

Hon. G. Lore: Bill 38 and these amendments are en­abling. They enable us to enter into section 6 and 7 agreements, and amendments we have here broaden the scope of those.

[11:25 a.m.]

The funding for jurisdiction and the pathways to it are part of a tripartite agreement. So to the member’s question, the province has a role, and the federal government has a role in this. We come together with the IGBs to do this work.

What that funding arrangement looks like is work that’s underway and active right now. In fact, Thursday of this week, there are approximately 60 Nations that we’re meeting with in person to engage in this work. So in this legislation, the amendments are enabling, and the tripartite work around a funding agreement is active and underway.

E. Ross: I understand we’re talking about legislation that enables information-sharing between the Crown and First Nations. Very sensitive information, which could get legal very quickly if it’s not covered in legislation here, not only for the Crown but for the First Nation in question.

So it’s my understanding, then, that there is no transfer payment coming from Ottawa to the B.C. government, not only for this transfer of information that we’re talking about in Bill 19, but also overall for the transfer of powers for the jurisdiction of Aboriginal children.

I’m just trying to get a feel for what is Ottawa’s role in this because you can’t deny the Indian Act has a large part to play in this. For the government of Ottawa to sign off on this, they’ve got to be sure that nothing’s going to come back to them, whether it be financial or legal, under their fiduciary duty to First Nations.

When we’re talking about this tripartite agreement, are we really talking about the provincial government and the federal government basically chipping in to provide a fund for this exercise for Bill 19, or is it entirely going to be a federal transfer payment to B.C.?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: A couple of points of clarification for the member. What we are talking about here in this broadening of scope is not just about information-sharing. The expansion of powers that we can put in a section 6 agreement goes beyond that and could include other powers of a director, like care planning or safety mitigation. There are a number of things it could include beyond information-sharing.

This is about decision-making together when nations who are not exercising full jurisdiction, so still operating under the Child, Family and Community Service Act, want to be at the table where decisions are being made about their kids. When it comes to full jurisdiction, those happen through a coordination agreement. Again, that involves a tripartite that includes the province, the federal government and the IGB.

E. Ross: Yeah, I wasn’t talking about jurisdiction per se. I was talking about the funding — basically, the funding that will come from, or maybe not come from, the federal government.

The minister mentioned they are in tripartite agree­ments right now with Ottawa as well as First Nations. So I imagine there’s some conversation about Ottawa’s role specifically in funding this, because Ottawa has a fiduciary duty to Aboriginals, regardless of what B.C. does. Now, whether that’s a delegated authority to B.C., that’s beside the fact.

All I’m asking for is: in the tripartite agreement negotiation going on right now, is funding coming from Ottawa part of those conversations, and if so, to what extent?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: The tripartite agreements are for co­ordination agreements, and that is about the full exercise of jurisdiction. What’s happening in this legislation is expanding the scope of section 6 agreements, which are under the Declaration Act. Again, that’s operating under our ministry’s legislation, but expanding the power so that nations can be at the table when that decision-making is happening.

It’s not in this bill, but to the members’ question, just to reiterate, that collaborative work around what this is going to look like, in a tripartite way, is ongoing, including as soon as this Thursday. And there’s a recognition that both other levels of government need to be involved for jurisdiction to be a success.

E. Ross: Yes, I understand that, but the question was specific to Ottawa’s role in terms of financing this initiative.

Regardless of this, there are always transfer payments from Ottawa to B.C. for Aboriginals in B.C. There have always been. But in this case here, we’re not too clear on what Ottawa will be doing in terms of their contribution to Bill 19 and the original act.

Really, where this is heading is…. I’ve seen this before in terms of transfer payments. There’s always some type of fee administered by B.C. in these transfer payments. B.C. takes their cut. Let’s just cut to the chase here. And it’s not just with Children and Families, but there are other programs that Ottawa actually delegates to B.C. to actually undertake some services on behalf of First Nations.

The minister talked about this bill not only being info-sharing but also for the expansion of powers and jurisdictions from First Nations — First Nations taking on more responsibility, which actually includes more liability. This is why the question of the funding is so important. It can’t be bare-bones funding.

If Ottawa is contributing a large portion of the funding here to B.C. to undertake Bill 19, then it only stands to reason that the First Nations should get the bulk of that funding, if not 100 percent of that funding, for each child, just because of liability issues alone. Forget about management.

The B.C. government, the federal government all know that liability goes into protecting a child, whether Aboriginal or not. The B.C. government, the federal government — you’re covered. You’ve got the taxpayer base to fall back on. First Nations don’t have that, especially First Nations that don’t have an economic base. Basically, that’s why I’m so interested in Ottawa’s role in terms of funding.

When we’re talking about this, is it the perspective of the minister that any funding that comes from Ottawa, at the very least, flows 100 percent to the First Nations who take on the jurisdiction and the liability proposed by Bill 19?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: Again, this legislation enables us to enter into agreements under sections 6 and 7 of the Declaration Act. The amendments here today expand the scope of that so that we’re better able to collaborate on the powers that truly impact the lives of kids and families.

Nothing in the bill is touching on funding agreements, but those will be negotiated and will be part of the conversations around section 6 and section 7 agreements. That broader work on a funding model for a full jurisdiction in a tripartite way is, as I said, ongoing and very active. I can offer the member an update as that funding model work continues, if that would be something of interest.

A. Olsen: Can the minister share with the House how much, just on average, the ministry spends per child in care, currently? How much is allocated per child in care?

[11:45 a.m.]

Hon. G. Lore: I don’t have that number off the top of my head. We’re happy to share it.

Some of the context I think is important is that the number that the member’s looking for is total spending divided by total number of kids. It doesn’t represent a kid. There’s huge variability because the system is needs-based, responsive to kids’ needs. It covers things like supports for the family, including if the child is with extended family, costs associated with recreation for kids, medical needs, medical supplies.

There’s massive variation, and that number doesn’t tell us something about a particular kid. I don’t have it here with me, but it’s something we can share with the member.

Thank you. I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:46 a.m.


PROCEEDINGS IN THE
BIRCH ROOM

Committee of Supply

ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
EDUCATION AND CHILD CARE

(continued)

The House in Committee of Supply (Section C); K. Greene in the chair.

The committee met at 11:15 a.m.

The Chair: Good morning, Members.

I call Committee of Supply, Section C, to order. We are meeting today to continue the consideration of the budget estimates of the Ministry of Education and Child Care.

On Vote 20: ministry operations, $9,576,781,000 (continued).

E. Sturko: Good morning to all my colleagues here in the room. Thanks for your participation again today.

Going back to the $30 million announcement for dyslexia programs, what evidence-based screening method will be used, and by whom will these methods be used?

Hon. R. Singh: The early screening will be done by the teachers. We are looking at tools. We are also talking to the districts who are already doing the screening and the tools that they are using. What tools the teachers will be using are to be determined.

The focus here is that every child from kindergarten to grade 3 gets screened early. If they have any literacy or early learning challenges, they can get the support.

E. Sturko: I’m going to try and roll these next two questions into one, so bear with me.

Will all the components, then…? I think the minister was saying that they’re looking at all early learning and literacy components. Does that include reading, writing and math? Can you talk to me about that plan?

Knowing that dyslexia is a spectrum of degrees of severity…. It’s a spectrum of forms, including dyscalculia, dysgraphia and auditory processing disorder. How will children with these learning disabilities be screened, will they be screened, and how long will the training be for the teachers who will be supporting them?

[11:20 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: There’s a difference between literacy screening and a diagnostic assessment to identify a learning disability. What we are implementing is literacy screen­ing that can be done in a classroom setting by a teacher.

As I mentioned earlier, when we identify problems early, we can catch most kids up so that they don’t need an extended assessment and they don’t need to seek support outside the public school system. This will also mean we can do a better job of addressing the needs of students who do have learning disabilities that require a higher level of intervention.

E. Sturko: Just for clarification, this early screening program will indicate whether or not the child may be having issues with literacy but would require further screening and further diagnosis and testing in order for them to understand the scope of what the disability is?

Hon. R. Singh: Early intervention is the key to find out what supports a child would be needing, and this early screening would be done by the teachers.

[11:25 a.m.]

In most of the scenarios, teachers will have the tools to provide that support, because early intervention is happening and early screening is happening. Identifying those gaps early on gives the teachers the opportunity to give the resources that the child requires, but if during that early screening process, a teacher recognizes there’s need for more interventions or diagnosis, the teachers would be referring the child accordingly.

E. Sturko: Before Budget 2024, the minister announced a ban on the use of cell phones in classrooms. Would the minister please outline the policy direction she gave to school districts? How many districts have implemented this policy, and which ones?

[11:30 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We are working with the school districts to ensure that all schools have policies in place to restrict cell phone use during instructional time for the next school year. We all know that there is a time and place for cell phones, and that includes when they are needed for accessibility and health purposes. This also includes teaching students to develop lifelong healthy habits with technology and social media.

We have amended the provincial standard code-of-conduct order. Districts are now in the process of updating their policies. Over 30 districts already have policies in place, and the order will be in effect July 1. All districts will submit to the ministry for review before the start of the next school year.

E. Sturko: Thank you, Minister.

Can the minister please tell the House what part of Budget 2024 is aimed to implement this new policy?

Hon. R. Singh: As this is a policy change, the districts will be managing this with their existing budgets.

E. Sturko: Classroom schedules are changing in Surrey due to the failure of this government to plan ahead regarding school capital, which will have a direct impact on students with learning disabilities let alone families with two children and jobs. There are concerns that I’ve already heard from families where an older child from high school has to provide care for elders, assists in child care or works a job where they actually contribute to the financial health of the family.

To the minister, will she stand up and tell the Surrey school district that they’re not allowed to change the current school timetable?

[11:35 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We know that Surrey is one of the most fast-growing communities, and more and more people are making Surrey their home. I have personal experience with Surrey. I made Surrey my home a number of years ago and so are many, many new families moving to Surrey.

The district engages with their school community to meet the needs of the community. The ministry does not dictate to any district on timetables. The expectation is that they are working with their local communities and making those decisions.

E. Sturko: The ultimate responsibility for the well-being and education of students rests with the ministry, rests with the minister. Given the challenges that I outlined….

I, too, have children in SD36, including a son who will be attending a school that is supposed to go to staggered starts or even split shifts. For families that have children both in elementary school and in high school, it creates an incredible issue, especially when there’s no bus service available. I find it difficult that….

Yes, of course, school districts are left to have to forge their own way, but they were put in this difficult decision by an underinvestment by this government, asking for a specific number of schools and not getting them.

Now they have no choice. They feel that there is no choice but to send kids to school either in split shifts or staggered starts, which will be incredibly disruptive to families not to mention have impacts on students with disabilities, take away their ability, in some cases, to participate in extracurricular activities, perhaps impact their families’ finances if they are contributing financially by working a part-time job. There are just so many things that can be impacted here.

Has the ministry looked at this? Is there anything in the budget to even study the impacts this will have on community members in Surrey? The reality is that the ultimate responsibility does lie with the minister here. It’s fine and dandy to say, “Well, you know, the school district has to make its own decision,” but they are essentially backed into a corner here, where they feel that this is the only alternative.

We don’t know what type of negative unintended consequences this change will have. I would like the minister, please, to explain what type of studying they’ve done on this issue, what type of review. What in the budget is dedicated to ensuring that the students who are forced to do this now and the families that are forced to do this will have the support that they need? How is the minister who is responsible going to make sure that this can be done and not harm families?

[11:40 a.m.]

Hon. R. Singh: We know a record number of people have moved to Surrey, and our government is committed to accelerating expansion projects in Surrey. Since September 2017, the province has approved nearly $750 million for projects in Surrey, which will bring nearly 12,400 spaces.

The expectation of the ministry is that every child in every district, and especially now with what we are seeing with growing districts, will get quality education and that there are no barriers to that education. I think this is the intent of the boards of education also. They are consulting very closely with their community partners.

Along with the capital project funding, Surrey also gets the feeding futures funding, which is $8.85 million per year. Also the student and family affordability fund, which for this year was $1.872 million. So the ministry is working very closely with the district and looking at their needs and also providing the supports that they need.

The Chair: I ask the minister to move the motion.

Hon. R. Singh: I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 11:44 a.m.