2009
Legislative Session: First Session, 39th Parliament
HOUSE BLUES
This is a DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY of debate in one sitting of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. This transcript is subject to corrections, and will be replaced by the final, official Hansard report. Use of this transcript, other than in the legislative precinct, is not protected by parliamentary privilege, and public attribution of any of the debate as transcribed here could entail legal liability.
(HANSARD)
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 17, 2009
The House met at 1:33 p.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Introductions by Members
R. Chouhan: Today in the gallery we have Mr. Stephen Branch, vice-president of marketing and sales strategy from Ritchie Bros. Please join me to welcome him. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
R. Austin: Today we have a number of guests joining us in the gallery from the Langley school district to meet with opposition MLAs to share their concerns about what's going on there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The first person is Bruce Northway, who is a PAC president. We also have two members from CUPE Local 1851, Axel Hoelterhoff and Dale Trenaman. We also have the president of CUPE 1260, Donna Mason joined by Kelly Dussin, also from CUPE 1260. We have Susan Fonseca, president of the Langley Teachers Association, and Gail Chaddock-Costello, vice-president of the Langley Teachers Association. Please, will all members of the House join me in making them most welcome. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Horgan: Hon. Speaker, it's a pleasure to rise and introduce two guests of mine who had the privilege of being in your office today and had the privilege of actually going up to the home of the ink-stained wretches in the press gallery. It was a delightful visit. No harm was done. I have all my fingers and toes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With us are Shawn O'Hara and his spouse, Elizabeth O'Hara. They bought an auction item at John Stubbs middle school to come and have lunch and meet the good people of the Legislature. I hope that we will be as entertaining as possible. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1335]
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
BLADERUNNERS
YOUTH EMPLOYMENT PROGRAM
J. Kwan: Our community had a dream 15 years ago, a dream of inclusivity, a dream to give voice to at-risk youth in a tangible way, a dream that is rooted in the belief that everyone should be given the opportunity to maximize their potential. This dream became reality for some 3,000 young people under a program called BladeRunners. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Since 1994 BladeRunners has provided support, helped place participants at construction sites and secured training opportunities for them. GM Place was the first private partner in this program. One of the early participants was Chris Cardinal, who started with the program in 1996. Today he is a Red Seal–certified cement mason with BOSA Construction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Working together, developers, labour unions and civil society organizations have proven that at-risk youth ages 15 to 30 will succeed if given the opportunity. With an 88 percent job placement rate, 32 percent female participation rate and 66 percent aboriginal participation, BladeRunners is an incredible success story. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the late 1990s BladeRunners was given the PEPNet award in Washington D.C., for excellence in youth employment programs. Today BladeRunners is sought after by cities like New Orleans, Calgary and Toronto as a model for community economic development. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I would like to recognize the founders of the program — people like Jim Green, who conceptualized it, and Garry Jobin, who has been a tireless advocate for young people in the Downtown Eastside. Garry has vouched for the participants in court, he has shown up at their doorsteps to make sure they get to work on time, and his cell phone is on 24 hours a day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Recognition is also in order for all the partners, job coordinators and the BladeRunners who went through the apprenticeship and got their trades training. I would like to ask all members of the House to join me in thanking them for their hard work, dedication and commitment and for the wonderful success of the program over the last 15 years and, hopefully, many more years to come. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SOUTH OKANAGAN
REHABILITATION CENTRE FOR OWLS
J. Slater: I am fortunate to live in and represent a very unique area. The Okanagan and Similkameen along with the Thompson valleys are home to 14 of the 15 owls that are found in British Columbia, which can be seen at various times throughout the year. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
SORCO, the South Okanagan Rehabilitation Centre for Owls, is a non-profit society whose mandate is conservation through rehabilitation and education, for orphaned birds of prey. Ken Fujino is the centre's facility manager, along with a volunteer board of directors whose purpose is to treat and care for injured and orphaned birds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These birds are also known as raptors. Some examples are owls, hawks, eagles, vultures, falcons and osprey. Once the birds are capable, they are released back into the wild, and 98 percent of all orphaned chicks that are brought into the centre have been released. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Two great horned owl fledglings have been nursed since February 2009 and were recently set free, one in Kelowna and one in Naramata. Several species of birds that have been restored to health at the centre are red-listed, which means they are facing global extinction. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
British Columbia's only endangered owl, the burrowing owl, is found in the Okanagan grasslands. Not only does the well-known Burrowing Owl Winery pay tribute to its distinctive bird by naming their winery after it; the owner, Jim Wyse, has volunteered his time and skills to assist in making habitats for these endangered birds. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As mentioned before, SORCO is a non-profit society that has been operating since 1987. Like any other society through the province, most of the work is done by volunteers who struggle with funding their organization and activities. Unfortunately, SORCO is not a zoo, and visitors are not able to drop in. However, they do visit schools and various organizations regularly as part of the society's educational program. They do have an adopt-an-owl program and will be looking for additional members and fundraising opportunities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I encourage everybody to go to www.sorco.org to learn more. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
RITCHIE BROS. AUCTIONEERS
R. Chouhan: Ritchie Bros. Auctioneers is one company that does not need much introduction. Established in 1958, it held its first auction sale in the Boy Scouts hall in Kelowna. From a very humble start, Ritchie Bros. has become the world's largest auctioneer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1340]
Today Ritchie Bros. has over 450,000 customers in over 200 countries. In 2008 its gross auction proceeds totalled $3.57 billion American. Now it is expanding its base to China and India, a true success story. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On October 29 at the grand opening of its brand-new global headquarters in Burnaby-Edmonds, I had the privilege to meet with Mr. Dave Ritchie, the only one of the three founding brothers still actively involved in the company. Mr. Ritchie and Mr. Bob Armstrong, the chief operating officer, gave me the tour of their beautiful and environmentally friendly headquarters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's truly a state-of-the-art building. It has a floor area of 160,000 square feet which includes a fitness centre, cafeteria and in-house day care centre. The design includes lots of natural materials, such as the timber columns, laminated wood beams supporting skylight ceilings at the top of a three-storey atrium. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The management has taken every possible step to make the workplace comfortable and enjoyable for its 312 employees. Mr. Armstrong told me that one of the company's objectives is to empower its employees and address environmental issues. Ritchie Bros. has proved to be a very responsible corporate citizen. I hope Mr. Stephen Branch, whom I introduced earlier, has enjoyed his trip to the Legislature. Mr. Speaker, I wish Ritchie Bros. every success and a very bright future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
KAMLOOPS AIRPORT EXPANSION
T. Lake: I rise today to speak about a tremendous success story in the Kamloops-Thompson region that began over five years ago and is one of the keys to the economic success of the region. The opening of the newly expanded Kamloops Airport at Fulton Field was held a few weeks ago, and it marks a new era in connectivity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A longer runway allows non-stop flights to all parts of North America, facilitating business travel, helping families and friends see each other more often. It creates a safer and more efficient provincial wildfire control centre. In fact, a record 765 aircraft movements were logged at the Kamloops Airport in a 24-hour period as crews battled wildfires throughout B.C. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A larger terminal now greets historic volumes of passengers who are treated to building accents and beautiful art that reflect the culture and history of the Shuswap people. Double-digit increases in passengers put Kamloops Airport in very exclusive company as one of the few growing air terminals in Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Visitors from around the world can now fly into Kamloops to ski at the renowned Sun Peaks Resort, home to the Austrian men's downhill ski team, or to golf at Canada's best course at Tobiano. Residents can connect to cities and resorts the world over using the three airlines that now serve the airport. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Fulton Field was named after wing commander John "Moose" Fulton, awarded the Distinguished Flying Cross for his brave bomber missions that claimed his life in 1942. I think the Moose would be proud of the little airfield that has grown to be such an integral part of the economic and social well-being of his home town. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Coquihalla Highway opened up the Kamloops region in the 1980s, and now the expansion of Kamloops Airport at Fulton Field provides the next level in safe and efficient connectivity to the Thompson valleys. I hope the House will join me in congratulating the Kamloops Airport Authority Society and its president, city councillor John O'Fee, for having the vision and determination to complete this tremendous project. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
WOMEN'S SKI JUMPING
AT OLYMPIC GAMES
D. Black: The 2010 Olympic Games present an opportunity for us to showcase British Columbia to the world. Our province and Canada will be presented to the entire world audience through the international media. Unfortunately, the image of the Vancouver games is being tarnished by gender discrimination. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I was dismayed last week to see that women ski jumpers have once again been denied the opportunity to compete on an equal footing with men. Ski-jumping is the only winter Olympic event that does not include a competition for women. Even though Canada has a Charter of Rights and Freedoms that prohibits gender discrimination, the female ski jumpers have been told that our courts have no authority to ensure they are able to participate in the Olympic Games being held in B.C. and funded by Canadian taxes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1345]
One of the stated missions in the Olympic charter is "to encourage and support the promotion of women in sport at all levels and in all structures with a view to implementing the principle of equality for men and women." Sadly, for women ski jumpers, these words are meaningless and ring hollow. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Over 130 women from 16 countries are registered as international ski-jump competitors, and hundreds more compete in local and national competitions. However, their achievements and the hard work they've put into developing their sport are not being recognized. It's actually unbelievable that these young women are being so blatantly discriminated against in our country. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As a B.C. MLA, I am deeply ashamed that such a public display of discrimination against women will take place in our province in a few months. I simply cannot understand how it's possible that the International Olympic Committee is above Canadian law and that neither our federal nor provincial governments can ensure women's equality in sport. It's sad that the 2010 Olympics will go down in infamy as the last Olympic Games in history to discriminate against women. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
RESPONSE TO HOUSE FIRE
BY MACEY FINLAY-PODNER
M. Dalton: I would just like to take a moment to recognize the courage of a young British Columbian who last night saved the lives of her entire family in a fire which burned down their home. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Macey Finlay-Podner is only nine years old. A fire had begun to spread in their Mission home as a result of an overturned candle used during a power outage. When she woke up to the crackling sound of the fire, she slung her two-year-old brother over her shoulder and carried him safely outside. She then ran back in, yelling and waking up her family, who escaped with only the clothes they were wearing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I talked to a Mission fire captain on the phone today, and he acknowledged that the house was burned down when the fire department arrived. The family would have perished had Macey not taken the action that she did. She told the fire chief that she had been learning about fire safety in her school. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I have talked to the Solicitor General, and we will be presenting this wonderful little Missionite a certificate for her vigilance and extremely heroic action. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Would the House join me in applauding this young girl and wishing her family the best as they recover from their difficult situation that could have easily been a total tragedy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Oral Questions
CLOSING OF ADOLESCENT MENTAL
HEALTH UNIT IN FRASER VALLEY
A. Dix: The Fraser Health Authority will be closing its adolescent psychiatric unit in Abbotsford on November 21, transferring existing patients to Surrey's existing beds and leaving much of the Fraser Valley without a critical health service. The purpose is to save $1.1 million, though the excuse is a staff shortage. The Fraser Health Authority just opened the unit before the election, and many youth and families served by the unit are distraught by its closure. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the Minister of Health tell this House on the basis of what medical evidence did he take the decision to close 38 percent of adolescent psychiatric beds in the Fraser Health Authority? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: The member is right to point out that there were significant staff challenges there. Only two of the six beds were actually operational. They were having a very difficult time bringing in the kind of staff necessary. Rather than operate at that low level of capacity, what they have done is merged that unit with the Surrey Memorial adolescent psychiatric unit to look after all the patients across the region. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I realize it is not a perfect solution, but given the difficulties and challenges that Fraser Health had in trying to properly staff the unit, it was the appropriate decision given the fact that there are not unlimited funds available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: What they're doing is leaving adolescents in need of acute care mental health services in the Fraser Valley to wait. That's what they're doing. This isn't innovation in health care. They're doing it to save $1.1 million. That's according to the Fraser Health Authority. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister doesn't have to believe me. Here's what Derryck Smith, former president of the BCMA, former head of psychiatry at Children's Hospital, professor of psychiatry at UBC, says: "This is a really unacceptable situation. This unit just opened. Teens will continue to be underserved here. Having young teens admitted to adult units simply does not work. It is often a dangerous situation for kids. The recruitment problem is a sham. I've never seen any evidence of a serious attempt to recruit doctors here." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1350]
Does the minister think it's acceptable, contrary to all the evidence, to be placing children and youth in adult psychiatric beds because of the fiasco in the Fraser Health Authority's budget? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: Again, here we have this member talking about fiascos. This is the same member, of course, that opposed the construction of the brand-new $355 million Abbotsford Regional Hospital and Cancer Centre that we built. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The issue is actually pretty straightforward. Only two of the six beds have actually been in use. That is a 30 percent capacity. They've had a real challenge in hiring the specialized youth and child psychiatry officials to be able to staff the unit. What they have done in the interim is invest $400,000 to enhance the local adolescent crisis response program and develop an adolescent day treatment program locally. Now, those that require in-patient bed services will be utilizing, as I mentioned earlier, the ten-bed adolescent psychiatric unit at Surrey Memorial Hospital. That is ensuring that they are maximizing the dollars and the services to patients. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a further supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A. Dix: Here's what they said before the election: "The adolescent psychiatric unit is of major significance, because the only other one in the region is in Surrey and is usually full. Right now if a teen in the Fraser Valley needs in-patient care, there's usually a long wait, and they often, in the end, end up on an adult unit." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's what they said before the election when they were doing press releases, when they were announcing the hospital and opening the hospital that was built at 300 beds that's currently operating at 236 beds. That's what they said before the election. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is risky for youth. It's risky for health care. Can the minister explain to the community, to the families of the patients and to the public why it's abandoning its election pledges to adolescents in need of care in the Fraser Health Authority? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: It's always interesting to hear the member opposite lecture government about the shortage of qualified medical professionals in our health system. As the member would well know…. In fact, he was chief of staff to the NDP government at the time that actually did not add a single… [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
…new training space for doctors or nurses at any time in the 1990s for the entire decade — not one. So what does that mean? All the listening audience and those that are watching television will know that to train medical professionals, especially doctors, takes up to seven or eight years and sometimes longer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we have done is doubled the number of training spaces for doctors, doubled the number of training spaces for nurses. Over 15,000 new nurses have been trained and educated. That is why I won't take any criticism from that former chief of staff of an NDP government that cut spaces for professionals. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Member.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, here's what's a fiasco. The minister wants to talk about a fiasco. It's opening a bunch of new beds, opening a new hospital and then less than a year later closing them. That's a fiasco for you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, the minister will know that adolescent mental health services are shared between his ministry and the Ministry of Children and Family Development. There's also a joint committee that deals with these issues. Can the minister tell this House: did that committee approve of his decision to close these beds? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: I've been trying to explain to the members opposite that over the next three years, in spite of the fact that there will be a 20 percent budget increase for the health care authorities, including Fraser Health — 20 percent — there are still pressures within the system. What we have asked…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1355]
Interjections.
Hon. K. Falcon: Well, you know, Members, you can either listen to the answer or not listen. But if you're going to yell and interrupt me, then I don't get to answer the question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. K. Falcon: I'm trying to answer the question, Member. You'd think the members might actually listen to the answer. I know they don't like the answer, but they have to listen to the answer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat for a second. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: I've been very upfront with the members that in spite of a record 20 percent increase in the budgets, there are still pressures. When there are pressures in the system that require the system to say we need more than a 20 percent increase, we ask them to do better with the dollars they have. So when they have a psychiatric…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. K. Falcon: Just a minute. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When only two of the six beds available at the Abbotsford Regional Hospital are being utilized, when they know there is a real challenge in spite of recruiting internationally and nationally for child youth psychologists, then it actually makes sense to ensure that those patients can be moved to the ten-bed unit at Surrey Memorial while they add new services locally to deal with them on an out-patient basis. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: The member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Sather: Well, the Fraser Valley is getting shafted by this minister. First he closed addiction services for youth, and now he closes psychiatric services for youth. He has this false premise about lack of recruitment when the doctor, the UBC psychiatry professor who I wager knows a lot more about psychiatric services than the minister does, says he's seen no effort whatsoever to recruit for that hospital. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
A year ago Fraser Health was emphasizing how critical this adolescent psychiatric unit was. It described the unit as significant. It was one of only two in the Lower Mainland. Without it, youth are left without any help or they go to adult services, which is also dangerous for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Instead of defending a program closure that's based on a false premise, will the minister listen to clinical experts and reconsider this bad decision? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Falcon: The member opposite talks about how hard done his area is. I certainly didn't hear those comments when they tripled the emergency department at Ridge Meadows Hospital. I didn't hear any criticisms from the member. Certainly, I've heard no criticisms now that there's a new Pitt River Bridge, a seven-lane Pitt River Bridge and a new Golden Ears Bridge, which allows connections between the new $355 million Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Centre. No — suspiciously quiet on those issues. I find that interesting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact of the matter is, you know, that these members, in a $15 billion health system, like to run around and see if they can find something here or there to try and suggest to the public that there are cuts when there are increases. The fact of the matter is a tripled emergency department in that member's hospital, right in that member's riding. The fact of the matter is a new $355 million Abbotsford Hospital and Cancer Care Centre, the first hospital in British Columbia in 35 years, built by this government. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
RELEASE OF POLICE VIDEO
OF CLAYTON WILLEY
B. Simpson: On July 21, 2003, Clay Willey was apprehended by the Prince George RCMP, and he died while in police custody. A coroner's inquest into his death revealed that Mr. Willey was hog-tied, dropped from a height onto his face and chest and tasered several times by police while he was bound. There are three different video files of this incident, and concerns were raised yesterday that key moments have been edited out of those videos. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the Solicitor General commit today to release the full unedited versions of these videos to the public? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Heed: This is a very, very tragic event, a tragedy for the family to view the video and relive what Mr. Willey experienced during that time. It's also tragic for the police officers, because nobody wants an event to conclude that particular way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1400]
I'm advised that the head of the RCMP for British Columbia has reached out to the native leaders. I am advised that they have arranged to meet with the family on November 30 to discuss the incident, to view the video that's available and determine what the next steps are. This is, in my view, an appropriate course of action to ensure that the family's wishes are adhered to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Simpson: Mr. Speaker, 6½ years after the incident, E division has finally conceded to sit down with the family, the B.C. Civil Liberties Association and the Union of B.C. Indian Chiefs to review the entire file. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I spoke with one of the family members today, and she said they don't need to see the video again. The family already has that embedded in their minds. What they want is for the public to see the video, and they see no reason to wait. The family wants the video released to the public in its full, unedited fashion and do not need to wait till the end of the month to have that happen. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Will the Solicitor General commit today to adhere to the family's wishes and have that video released to the public? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Heed: Again, this is a very, very tragic and delicate event that has taken place — circumstances that have to be dealt with in an orderly fashion. I believe that the responsible thing and the respectful thing is that the RCMP sit down with the family. They've arranged a date, I'm advised, of November 30 to discuss this unfortunate incident, to review the circumstances surrounding it, to review the video and work with the family to determine what the next steps are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Farnworth: This tragedy is something that has happened too many times in British Columbia and that has left the public too often with questions that are unanswered. One of the things that is clear is that the public must have confidence in investigations that have taken place and in the transparency of investigations, and that all the information is on the table. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Solicitor General. He stood in this House and said he wants to respect the family's wishes. Well, the family's wishes are clear. They want to see that video released so the public understands what happened. Will he commit to make sure that that is done? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. K. Heed: We truly believe in transparent and accountable processes, but I can tell you that in this very, very unfortunate set of circumstances we want to work with the family. We want to ensure that the family is very well aware of what the circumstances were that have taken place surrounding this unfortunate incident, what the video does show and, again, work with the family on next steps to ensure, truly, the family wants this video released, as we move forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Farnworth: The family believes it's in the public interest. The public has seen too many of these situations take place in this province. The public wants to know that all the information is on the table during investigations and that transparency is one of the first and foremost priorities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So my question is to the Solicitor General again. The family believes it's in the public interest for the video to be made public. Will the Solicitor General commit and ensure that those wishes in fact take place and that that video is released to the public? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1405]
Hon. K. Heed: We need to respect the family wishes here. I am advised that the RCMP is sitting down with the family on November 30 to determine what the best, most respectful course of action is in regards to these unfortunate circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
After November 30 I'm sure we'll have a clearer direction on where we want to go with this particular video, based on what the family's wishes are, and that the privacy concerns have been met, any legal concerns have been met and investigative concerns. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
LEGAL AID FUNDING FOR
FRANK PAUL INQUIRY CASE
J. Kwan: Well, the family has spoken on that case. Here's another family that's calling on the government to act. The opposition has learned that yesterday the government has withdrawn funding for legal representation of the family of Frank Paul and the First Nations Leadership Council of B.C. in the government's ongoing legal challenge of the Frank Paul inquiry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the Attorney General explain to this House: why is this government going back on its commitment to the family of Frank Paul? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: I want to assure the member and all members of the House that the government takes this matter and these matters very seriously, has endeavoured to ensure that there is a process in place, that the interests of all parties are properly respected and will continue to take that approach to what has also been a very tragic episode. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
J. Kwan: The Attorney General didn't answer my question. Legal representation for the Frank Paul family and the First Nations Leadership Council at this juncture of the Frank Paul inquiry is essential to getting at the truth and essential to finding out what happened in the death of Frank Paul. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It has been more than ten years. Why is this government trying to stop the family from accessing justice, and why is this government trying to stop the family from finally getting closure in the death of Frank Paul? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: In fact, that's not the case. At every step along the way, members of the House will know that the government has endeavoured to ensure that there is an opportunity to fully participate, that the facts that led to these tragic circumstances are before those adjudicating them and before the public. That continues to be the approach that the government intends to take. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: The cost to allow this family to continue to be represented in this most awful of circumstances is very small in comparison to this budget. So I'm asking the Attorney General: will he today agree to restore the funding so that the Frank Paul family and the B.C. leadership council can be represented? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: The member will know that at every step along the way we have endeavoured to ensure that there is a means by which the information relating to what has taken place is made available, that there is meaningful participation. That continues to be the principle that will guide us as we move forward on this matter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
L. Krog: It's a very simple request. It's a very simple question. It's a yes-or-no answer. Can the Attorney General do the right thing today and agree to continue to provide the funding so that this family — in one of the most well-known and notorious cases in this province's history — might get the representation they deserve. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. de Jong: The member knows that the government hasn't been in any way reluctant in the past to ensure that there is meaningful participation and a meaningful opportunity for people to participate in the determination of what took place in these tragic circumstances. That has been the guiding principle in the past and will be the guiding principle going forward. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
GOVERNMENT ACTION
ON POVERTY REDUCTION
M. Karagianis: Food Banks Canada today released its HungerCount 2009. It shows that once again a record number of British Columbians were relying on food banks here in this province. In March, during the count, almost 90,000 people relied on food banks for assistance. More than 30 percent of those people were children. Yet this government refuses to follow the lead of provinces like Manitoba, Quebec, Ontario and Newfoundland, which are all implementing poverty reduction strategies. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1410]
My question today is to the Minister of Children and Families. How many children and families have to deal with hunger in this province before the government will institute a poverty reduction strategy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Certainly, after reviewing the report, we're aware that not only is British Columbia facing challenges due to this economic downturn and the resulting loss of jobs that impact families, but in fact, if you take a look at our neighbouring province of Alberta, they have seen an increase of 61 percent in usage of food banks compared to British Columbia's 15 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We recognize, certainly, that there are challenges out there for families, and our ministry, along with the Ministry of Housing and Social Development, continues to monitor caseloads very carefully and respond accordingly as we see those needs arise. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Member has a supplemental. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Karagianis: I'm actually not talking about Alberta. I'm talking about British Columbia and what exists here. More than 27,000 children relied on food banks to fill their bellies in the month of March. Under this government, we've had the highest rate of child poverty for six years in a row, and now, this year, we have record-breaking numbers of families looking to food banks to meet their needs. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The New Democrat government in Manitoba, Liberal governments in Quebec and Ontario, a Conservative government in Newfoundland…. Provinces of all political stripes are taking concrete action to reduce poverty. Again to the Minister of Children and Families: when will this government commit that British Columbia will implement a poverty reduction strategy? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: Well, I am very pleased to report to this House about the most recent successes we've had in reducing child poverty. One of these comes from one of the most recent reports — September 10, 2009, the market basket measure report on low income in Canada. It reports that not only have we seen a 41 percent decline in overall poverty since 2000, but in the single year of 2006 to 2007 that rate dropped by 18 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Elmore: Despite this most recent statistic, six years in a row British Columbia has had the highest rates of child poverty, and we continue, despite those statistics…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Just take your seat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
M. Elmore: Despite that statistic, B.C. remains to have the highest level of child poverty. That's the reality in B.C. The minimum wage has remained stagnant for eight years, social assistance hasn't kept pace with increasing costs and 10,000 households are waiting for affordable housing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This food bank report shows the number of people using food banks in this province has jumped by 15 percent in just one year: 27,000 children in the one month of March relying on food banks. My question is to the Minister of Children and Families. Will this government commit to implementing a poverty reduction strategy today? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: As a result of a number of initiatives that we've taken, we've seen those rates go down. I can talk about a couple. In 2007 we raised the rates across the board for all clients of social assistance, giving them some of the highest rates in all of Canada. We've also budgeted an additional $160 million this year for what we anticipate in caseload increases. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's important for the members, if they really want to tackle child poverty, to look at the numbers. When we compare to other provinces — and they love to trot out "last place in Canada" — we're talking about a 0.1 percent difference. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1415]
The reality is that in terms of child poverty, using the most recent report on the market basket measure, we have seen a drop from '06…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, just take your seat. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Members.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members on both sides of the House, please. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Continue, Minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. M. Polak: If we're going to be serious about tackling child poverty, I would recommend that the members be serious about doing their research. When we take a look at the measures that the government of Canada and other agencies send us, it is clear the initiatives we've undertaken are working. For children under the age of 18, Members, in one year's time –– '06 to '07 –– the poverty rate dropped by 17 percent. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
GRAVEL EXTRACTION
FROM FRASER RIVER
V. Huntington: Last week emergency management B.C. announced that the province will proceed with gravel extraction along unspecified portions of the lower Fraser River from January to March 2010. The province has insisted that this is all about public safety and reducing the flood risk. However, a former regional director with the Department of Fisheries and Oceans has stated that there is a general lack of information that demonstrates that gravel removal has or will reduce flood hazard. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Similarly, the federal environment commissioner said in a report earlier this year that engineering and scientific studies concluded there was no reduction in the flood profile after gravel removal and that gravel removal would not significantly affect the potential for flooding. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
My question is to the Minister of Public Safety and Solicitor General. What scientific studies has his ministry used or conducted to justify the removal of gravel for flood protection measures? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjection.
Hon. B. Penner: Thank you for the intervention from the member for Delta North. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The B.C. government is committed to flood protection, and certainly, given the recent weather events, the last 72 hours, we can see that our investments are paying dividends. It's important that we continue to maintain our flood protection programs in British Columbia but that we do it in a balanced way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the 1990s we know that the other party did put a moratorium on gravel removal and walked away from a federal-provincial funding program for flood protection in the province. Our government ran on a commitment to restore our protection programs and to return to a well-managed, environmentally sustainable and balanced gravel removal program in order to advance flood protection. That has been our commitment, and that has been what we've delivered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[End of question period.]
Petitions
L. Popham: I rise to present a petition. I present the House with a petition signed by hundreds of people opposing the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Coons: I'd like to seek leave to introduce a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
G. Coons: I present the House with a petition signed by hundreds of people opposing the HST and wanting to scrap the implementation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: I also would like to present a petition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Mr. Speaker: Proceed. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Fraser: I present the House with petitions signed by hundreds of people from Alberni–Pacific Rim and Parksville-Qualicum opposing the HST. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. de Jong: I call in Committee A, Committee of Supply –– for the information of members, the estimates of the Ministry of Attorney General; and in this chamber, committee stage debate on Bill 18, the Assistance to Shelter Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1420]
Committee of the Whole House
BILL 18 — ASSISTANCE TO SHELTER ACT
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 18; L. Reid in the chair.
The committee met at 2:24 p.m.
On section 1.
S. Simpson: Could the minister describe for us who might constitute a "community representative"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1425]
Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, just before we start, to my left is Cheryl May, who's the manager of housing policy for the ministry, and Molly Harrington is to my right. Molly is the assistant deputy minister of policy and research. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The community representative is a person that is responsible for making the call with regards to extreme weather alerts with regards to opening additional shelter. For instance, in Victoria that is a contractor with the Cool Aid Society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Again, maybe just a little bit of elaboration on a community representative. So could the minister tell us what kind of organizations might a representative come from? Are there a variety of places that might identify a community representative? Who might they be? How does that designation happen? Is it people who are representative of some particular organizations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm just trying to get a clearer sense of, when it's a community representative, who it might specifically be in different communities. Vancouver is one place. It's a big city. There are lots of options. In smaller communities it may mean something entirely different. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'm happy to give the member the entire list after the debate today, but I'll give him some examples. For instance, in Abbotsford it is the responsibility of Dave Murray, the Abbotsford Community Services food bank, who sits on a committee within that community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's a committee within every community. It includes law enforcement, service providers and shelter providers who set the standards with regards to extreme weather triggers. Then they have a person that's chair of that committee that is a person that actually triggers the strategy. For instance, in Abbotsford it's that individual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'll pick another community. Wendy Tyrer, who is with Evergreen House, is in Campbell River. In Cranbrook it's Capt. Kirk Green of the Salvation Army. In Dawson Creek it's Martha Funk or Sheila Hanshaw, who are with the Housing Response Network in that community. In Fort St. John there's another captain with the Salvation Army. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's a list of communities from small to large across B.C. that have these. For instance, Port Hardy has Joyce and Keith Cousins, who are Salvation Army, and also Sgt. Chris Stewart, from the RCMP, who would make that trigger decision in that particular community. There's a number of them across B.C., whether it be the Sunshine Coast or Terrace or Vernon or Squamish or the North Shore or Port Coquitlam, Port Hardy, Saltspring, Mission, Nanaimo — those sort of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So a number of these committees are already set up across the province. They trigger the shelter already today, and they would be the ones that would trigger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Moving to the next definition, "emergency shelters." Could the minister tell us whether there is an intention to distinguish different kinds of shelters? The purpose of this question is — as we know, and we'll get into this further on in the bill for sure — that different shelters provide different kinds of capacity. We'll have a discussion about the no-barrier shelters, the HEAT shelters in Vancouver that allow people the ability, obviously, to bring possessions and things with them. Other shelters don't have that capacity. There are other distinctions among shelters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is the sense…? Is "emergency shelter" just to be a catch-all, or is there truly to be any distinguishment between the quality of shelters? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1430]
Hon. R. Coleman: This is a definition within the act, so it's intended to capture all government-funded and privately funded emergency shelters, including permanent and extreme weather beds. So all the shelters are captured under the definition of emergency shelters. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Moving to extreme weather conditions. For the purposes of this definition and determining what that is, other than…. I know that later in the legislation it identifies that the community representative for the minister determines whether there are extreme weather conditions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How, though, is this to be determined? Is there some particular meteorological trigger or something that triggers what a community representative for the minister looks at to determine that this is an extreme weather condition for the purposes of this legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The extreme weather conditions are when the weather conditions are set out in an extreme weather response plan that is filed with B.C. Housing or, for areas without plans, the weather conditions that would be prescribed in regulation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: It says that in relation, the weather response applies, and it talks about the conditions and a plan. Then it says that "any prescribed conditions that are not addressed or identified in the Extreme Weather Response Plan, or (b) in relation to a geographical area to which no Extreme Weather Response Plan applies…." It says that there are conditions where, if there isn't a plan, there's some determination of what the weather is. There's something that triggers that when there's not a plan. What triggers it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Where the committees exist in communities, we had the plans in place. Each community is a bit different, because the committee locally has made the decisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I will give you an example, using Burnaby, where their extreme weather response working group would have this definition. Weather conditions are deemed severe enough to present a substantial threat to life or health of homeless persons. Factors include, in Burnaby, temperatures at or below minus 2 degrees Celsius with zero with windchill — temperatures are not absolute and are flexible to other weather conditions — or freezing rain or significant snow accumulation or severe wind warning. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So what would happen outside of not having those committees…. B.C. Housing would be monitoring what the weather conditions were in communities across B.C. where this may be necessary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They will be encouraging, obviously, additional communities to get their own extreme weather committees together and work with us. They're working, through the regulation that they're working on, to be able to give them the flexibility to make that call or to advise the minister when that call has to be made when there are communities that don't have a committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I appreciate the minister's comments that those communities that don't have a plan in place will be encouraged to do what it takes to make the plan or put a plan in place. We can probably expect that to some degree, there are a significant number or at least a number of communities that for whatever reason may not have a plan in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister wants to tell me that we can deal with this question later on under the alerts. I'll be happy to deal with it there. But where that plan doesn't exist, where it's not clear who the community representative is, then what would define an extreme weather condition in those communities? Or would it just be a discussion? Would that be a case where the minister would have to talk to whoever he would talk to and then make a determination on what extreme weather was? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1435]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'm happy to describe to him the work that's ongoing with regards to that before this winter season comes in. Basically, what we've done is…. In every region of the province we have examples of triggering situations by community groups that are already in the process to have people in place. We're blending those triggering processes that we have in places like Fort St. John, Dawson Creek, Prince George, Quesnel or whatever into the regions and breaking the province into two regions for the purposes of developing the regulation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
One would basically be the coastal area of British Columbia, which would stretch from certain areas of the Okanagan down to the coast and up through the Interior because of the different humidities and what have you. The second would be the north and central part of the province and the eastern Rockies. That will then come into the development of a regulation that will have two measurements in areas where there aren't committees in place using the information we have amassed from the groups we already have that have them in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then the regulation will be developed as a standard for that to be used by B.C. Housing with community groups in situations when the weather gets to those levels in those communities, because they don't have a community group. That would then allow them to be able to make the decision, because that particular community doesn't have the triggering mechanism or what have you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The regulations are in development now on that basis and should be completed fairly shortly after the legislation is completed. The regulations would go forward based on that type of information. If you take, for instance, the Fraser Valley, you would look at Langley, Abbotsford, Surrey, Chilliwack, Mission and say: "What are their community plans triggering?" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't think there are many in that area, but let's say one community — for instance, Pitt Meadows — didn't have a triggering mechanism and didn't have a community group that was doing it. You could say: "Well, that's the average of this area, so this is the triggering mechanism for this area." This is the standard in place, so when it hits here, it hits there too. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Moving to "Extreme Weather Response Plan," the next definition, it says here in the legislation that it "means a current plan, filed with BC Housing, of a person who has entered into an agreement." Could the minister tell us: who might be that person? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The term "person" in this context means the broad group of people that would be making the decision with the chair, which obviously triggers it with regards to making the submission to B.C. Housing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For instance, in each of these communities there is somebody who is actually the person that makes the decision. But the person in this case is the community groups that have come together to build the plan and to have in place the measurements they will measure by when they want to trigger the extreme weather response. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Maybe there's some legal reason for this. But could the minister tell us why it talks about a person and not an organization or organizations? It speaks specifically of an individual. I interpret it that way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: It's because "person" is defined in the Interpretation Act as being more than just a single-entity person. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Maybe I have to go back and read the Interpretation Act. I'll be glad to do that on another day, but not at the moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If there's a committee in a community, wherever it may be, that deals with extreme weather…. We know, for example, in Vancouver at the HEAT shelters a committee was struck by the city, which brought a number of different interests together. They worked, I know, with the minister and the government in developing and getting support for the HEAT shelters and putting those in place in the case of Vancouver. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That committee and whatever decision that committee makes — would they be, for the purposes of this, essentially the person identified here? Or would the person be the "community representative" identified earlier who is in fact an individual? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1440]
Hon. R. Coleman: To try and get this for the member, the "person" is the broader community group, but there is an individual who is designated by that group as the person who is the decision-maker that would inform in the case of a situation with regards to extreme weather. They've come together as a group. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They've identified, for instance, in Vancouver, when weather conditions are deemed severe enough to present a substantial threat to life or health of homeless persons. Factors include "temperatures near zero with rainfall that makes it difficult or impossible for homeless people to remain dry; and/or sleet, freezing rain; and/or snow accumulation; and/or sustained high winds; and/or temperatures at or below minus 2 degrees Celsius." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That group of people, which are service providers and people from the community, probably law enforcement in Vancouver — I don't have the list here — have come up with this as the standard for that city. That's the person. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The individual, though, is identified and designated by that group as the person who actually makes that call. In the city of Vancouver, for instance, making that call is done by an individual who would represent that group. I don't have them right in front of me at this moment. I'll get that for the member. But that's essentially what it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Just so I've got this right, and I think I've got it right. In those communities that have developed a committee, you have a committee made up of any number of interests that play a role. Then there is a community representative who has that authority designated by the minister. That community representative, presumably, comes out of that committee. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is it the committee that will identify and designate that community representative, and then that will be validated by the minister? Or does the minister choose who in that committee will be that community representative? Does it come from the bottom up, or does it come from the minister down as to who it is that is that representative? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister might know, it may be that the chair of the committee is not the person who is the community representative, for any number of reasons of logistics or other reasons. They have somebody else who maybe is more appropriate for that, so it may not be the chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Who makes that decision? Does the committee give the minister a name and say, "This is our choice," or does the minister say: "Here on your committee is the person that should do this"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, I don't make the decision. Neither does B.C. Housing. It is done by the group at the grassroots level that makes the decision. You're right. It may not be the chair of the group. It could be an individual that is designated by them. They sign an agreement with us on extreme weather conditions for additional shelter space that would be triggered. When that's triggered, it's triggered by them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For instance, in Vancouver it's a gentleman by the name of James Pratt. James Pratt actually makes that call on behalf of the group of people that has established what those conditions for an extreme weather alert would be and would then trigger it based on those parameters that have been established by that community organization. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Moving to the definition of "person at risk," is there any distinction — I don't see it here, and I don't see it as it relates to section 5 — from a person at risk as a person who would be identified as somebody who would be covered under the Mental Health Act? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know that under the Mental Health Act police and other authorities have a certain ability to deal with issues around somebody who would be captured under the Mental Health Act and may not be in a position to, necessarily, look after their own interests, versus somebody who would not be deemed to be under the Mental Health Act. I assume, in large part, that the Assistance to Shelter Act would cover it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is there any distinction around "person at risk" between somebody who would be deemed under the Mental Health Act versus somebody who wouldn't? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1445]
Hon. R. Coleman: This is not intended to rewrite the Mental Health Act. It's not intended to replace it. It's intended to have a tool to get people to come from the street to the shelter. The Mental Health Act is always there as a tool for police if they wish to use it in situations where they think it would be appropriate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Is the minister saying that a "person at risk," then, could be somebody who could be deemed or triggered under the Mental Health Act or somebody who would be deemed not to be covered under the Mental Health Act? It sort of is a…. It's the much broader net. Would that be a fair interpretation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: There are folks on our street who wouldn't actually fall under section 28 of the Mental Health Act but who still need our help. They could be addicted to drugs or alcohol. They could be on the edges of what would be the edge of mental illness. It wouldn't maybe break them to the strength of section 28 of the Mental Health Act, but at the same time, they may need our help. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In actual fact, the genesis of this bill was the death of Tracey in Vancouver. The coroner actually identified that one of the challenges was that she was not at a level of exhibiting issues that would have had her be able to be dealt with under the Mental Health Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 1 approved.
On section 2.
S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, if we move down to, under section 2: "(2)(b) if, in the opinion of the community representative, extreme weather conditions exist, issue an extreme weather alert in the prescribed manner." Could the minister tell us what the prescribed manner would be? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'm going to try and take some latitude without breaking some issues with regard to the development of regulations, because there are two parallel pieces of work going on, but until regs actually go forward to cabinet, they are still deemed to be confidential. So I'm going to try and stay fairly broad, but I think I can answer the member's question. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What this section describes is a process for a community representative to issue or cancel an extreme weather alert. That extreme weather response plan, which actually is the alert, is filed with B.C. Housing as the designate and with a community representative identified who's responsible for issuing the alert. That protocol is in existence by an already-existing relationship with B.C. Housing as to how that notice goes and how it's handled. Then the plan describes the weather conditions under which an alert would be issued for that geographic area. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If that community representative believes that the weather conditions described in the plan exist, they may issue the alert, and when the alert is issued, the community representative notifies all police forces within the geographical area covered by the extreme weather response plan and notifies the minister. When we refer to "notifying the minister," in this particular case it would be the Crown corporation responsible. You're informing B.C. Housing. When you're informing B.C. Housing, you're informing, by virtue of that, the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The alert is in effect until the weather conditions no longer exist and/or the alert is cancelled by the community representative. In the event that a community representative fails to cancel an alert, the minister — and that would be B.C. Housing again — may cancel the alert, and must inform the appropriate police forces of that cancellation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1450]
As we develop the reg…. Basically, we already have this in place for the alerts. To do the next level of response, we'll use a similar format as what we're already using to do the alerts, and that is: the date of the issuance; the time of the issuance; the description of the extreme weather conditions; the description of the geographical area in which the alert has taken place; the name of the person issuing the alert — which is all required today; and then the names of the persons or entities who will be notified in the communities. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What this basically does is put into the legislation our ability to put into regulation what we're doing today under the alert side of this, saying for the purposes of this particular act…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So just to confirm here. It will deal with not having to deal with this later on. Is it the minister's intention that his authority will essentially…? Will he designate, as much as the minister designates, his authority to Mr. Ramsay and his officials at B.C. Housing, and will they act on behalf of the minister in terms of operationalizing this legislation? Of course, it all potentially comes back to the minister for final decisions, but will it be Mr. Ramsay and his officials who will make this act operate? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think it's probably better described as the ministry will make it operate. That is authority that's given through the ministry to the Crown. It's not going to be the minister making the decision. It will be delegated down to the appropriate people who are dealing with this in this particular case, because B.C. Housing handles all the alerts and all the shelter management and implementation across B.C. in cooperation with our non-profit partners. They are the logical people that would actually handle that piece as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Can the minister tell us, to the degree possible here, what the expectations may be about how if there's a decision to…? If an extreme weather alert is put in place by the community representative and the procedures are followed, what is the expectation about how that gets advertised in the community so that the community is aware that that alert has been put in place? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Are there resources for communications? Is there expectation there will be PSAs on the radio or advertisements or something that kind of gets the word out that we have an alert in place? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: There's one thing that I've got to say here. There is actually a very good system today that does this. So there's no additional stuff being added as far as what information has to be passed. All of this is a system of rigour that's been established over the last two to three years, where we have the community groups, we have the designated person, we have the protocols for communication, we have that all take place. The police are informed, the community groups are informed, all the shelter providers are informed, and local newspaper and media are informed. That's how it has been working. This is basically describing what we're already doing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The maturity of the piece that is the extreme weather strategy is actually very good in many communities, and I've been very amazed as the minister to watch this when it has been activated, even in my own community — how quickly the cops show up, the church halls open, the meals are on, and there's extra space for people in severe weather. It just — boom! — happens. It happens because these guys are all pretty well coordinated, and they know what they're doing. They immediately inform. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's all coordinated by B.C. Housing in these protocols and these agreements that they have with these groups, and it's actually pretty well done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I appreciate that many of the systems that are in place…. I've certainly seen some of them operate. There's a fair amount of coordination — local governments and others. But clearly, with Bill 18, the minister has introduced a very significant new wrinkle. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1455]
As the minister may or may not know, we clearly have a situation where the…. Earlier today I know that at the B.C. Non-Profit Housing Association's annual conference, they passed a resolution at their annual general meeting to talk about and to make a request that there be substantive consultation with organizations there — the organizations that are members there — on the development of the regulations before they go forward. I think, as those groups realize, as regulatory changes or those things might happen, it could affect both the way those groups do their work and the way some of this works. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know they've made that request there, and that's part of my asking some of these questions about processes. Because I know they are going to have significant questions that they hope to be part of the conversation with the minister or the minister's officials, in terms of development of those regulations. Again, it's because a significant amount of Bill 18 is done through regulation. I know that there is some concern there in relation to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When we look at section 2(3), it says: "The minister may cancel, in the prescribed manner, an extreme weather alert issued under this section if the community representative does not cancel the extreme weather alert…" etc. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us under what circumstances or what the thinking is here of the minister and in the legislation that…? Presumably, this would be a case where the minister, or B.C. Housing on the minister's behalf, would overrule a community representative and make a decision to change the position of that community committee. If that's not the intention, then maybe the minister could correct me on that. But what's the thinking for section 2(3)? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We are going to consult, and we are consulting with shelter service providers and people involved in that side of the housing business. We're not necessarily going to the entire body of the B.C. non-profit, which might be operating a family social housing project in a community that has nothing to do with shelter or homelessness or mental health and addiction. Our intent is to get these regs done and consulted with and dealt with so that we're ready for this winter if we pass this legislation now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I thought maybe just to contextualize this for the member…. There are 32 communities in B.C. that have plans in place. The majority of our larger communities have plans in place. As a matter of fact, 82 percent of the communities with populations over 35,000 people have plans in place for this particular thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To answer the member's question, I'll just use an example. It could be for any reason, but let's say, for instance, the Comox Valley. "Temperatures near zero with rainfall that it makes it difficult or impossible for homeless people to remain dry." That's one of the conditions for their particular issue with regards to their alert. Then they add: "And/or sleet, freezing rain, snow accumulation, sustained high winds, temperatures at or below minus 2 Celsius. Feedback from clientele of the various facilities may also be considered." Now, they trigger this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, let's say the individual got sick or the weather changed and went up to 10 degrees Celsius, and they delayed actually changing the time frame when they would actually move out of these shelters, which are there for these, basically, extreme weather triggers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then the ability is on the management basis — in this case, it's B.C. Housing — to say: "Guys, the weather has changed. It's no longer required. You haven't advised us of this, but we can see very clearly that this is changing. Therefore, we can use our authority to say that this trigger doesn't exist anymore." We don't run into it often, but I think it's probably just a management tool in case we ever did run into something like that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: How might that work? Could that work in the reverse? For example, if the local community thought that the extreme weather alert wasn't necessary, and the advice to the minister from his staff was that it should be continued, then does it work in reverse? Could the minister say: "No, I'm overruling, and it's going to continue"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, theoretically, I suppose it could, but our intent here is to be able to have…. Obviously, if Campbell River says, "We've reached the threshold," we say yes, because we already have a protocol in place with them on what that threshold is, and we trigger because they advise us that they want to trigger. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1500]
I think it would be disappointing if we ever had to use the reverse of what the member described, where we have to step in when we have a protocol in place, because obviously, that group would not then be necessarily doing the job that they committed to do on behalf of the citizens of that community. In my time as minister, I don't know of any time where that has happened, where a community group has failed to trigger when things hit. If anything, they will actually.... If there are other circumstances, they will trigger early versus late, because they'll err on the side of caution. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
On the reverse side, I don't think we've had the problem either. But in a community, for instance, where there is no group, then I guess it's 100 percent our call anyway at B.C. Housing. So if it's a community that really needs to have something triggered and we trigger it, we're paying. We pay all the bills when this happens. We pay the rent, the shelter, the costs and all that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We would have to make the decision when the weather changed to not do it, because we don't have any community group giving us input either way. So I do think it's really just a safeguard to make sure that the program and the plan work. It's what we have in place today as to how we manage the system today, that we do have that ability, because it's necessary to have that rigour of discipline within a program like this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I just want to bounce back a bit. The minister, in answer to the previous question, had provided a little bit more information around numbers of committees. I think he had said there are 32 communities that have committees in place today. I think that's what I heard the minister say. So how does that, in terms of the province…? Those 32 committees — are those mostly, could the minister tell us...? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, you have committees in places like Vancouver that absorb a whole lot of the population — and in the Lower Mainland. How many of those committees are outside the Lower Mainland versus the ones that are in the Lower Mainland? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Lots. What happens is if you have a major community like Vancouver, often that protocol actually affects Richmond and Burnaby and what have you. But for instance, the Interior in the Okanagan is pretty well covered. Like I said, 82 percent of communities with 35,000 people or more in population are covered already today by committees. The Island is covered basically from Port Hardy to Victoria. The north is basically covered into, you know, the northwest; northeast would be Dawson Creek and Fort St. John, which would be the two major communities up there. That sort of thing. Terrace is covered. Those types of things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's actually a pretty good number of groups that are. At the same time, because we have.... For instance, the north is probably not as good an example, but certainly if we triggered in Kelowna, we would know that we would be triggering in Penticton, Oliver, Osoyoos and Vernon, because that whole valley is pretty much the same for weather. Even Oliver. Osoyoos may not have a committee in place. We'd know that they would be able to be triggered if we thought it was necessary for shelter in those communities if we had an identified need. So that's basically how it works. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 2 approved.
On section 3.
S. Simpson: Let me just ask for clarification from the minister here. Section 3 — is the intention of section 3 to deal with those communities that don't have committees, or are there other circumstances under which the minister sees section 3 being triggered other than what might be in communities that have no committee? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think the member probably captured it pretty well in his question. Basically, the provision allows for the law to be applied equally across the province by allowing the minister to issue an alert in areas that do not have a plan. It also allows the minister to issue an alert in areas that have a plan in two circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1505]
The two circumstances where he would, basically, would be where the weather conditions are not described in a plan. That allows us to say: "We can go outside the agreement with you." That would be a situation where the plan maybe doesn't have the factors of high wind or a particular weather event that's going to have a severe effect on a community. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, that really goes into areas like severe flood issues. Flood issues aren't necessarily covered, but in some rural areas of B.C., in conjunction sometimes with emergency preparedness, we need to move very quickly on some shelter space for people. So that allows us to bring in an overlapping plan and coordinate with that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Also, the reason for the provision…. As the member says, if the community representative does not declare an alert despite extreme weather conditions, we need the ability to do it so that we can make sure that measurement is there. But it is basically this provision, as the member described at the beginning of his question, for us to be able to put the plans in place in communities that don't have a plan. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
For instance, if Williams Lake had a plan, but Quesnel didn't. Quesnel and Williams Lake and 100 Mile are all sort of in the same weather pattern. It would allow us to do Quesnel and 100 Mile in that area based on the conditions of Williams Lake. So we would probably use what has triggered the plan in one community and say: "Okay, what else in the geographical area needs to be applied immediately?" We would do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister talked about the sort of weather or things that might be unique. So does the minister see this section, then…? Other than in those communities that clearly don't have a committee, that can't provide advice or don't have a community representative because they don't have an infrastructure to do that, so the minister or the minister's staff are playing that role…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In addition to that, just so I'm clear on the minister's answer, that might also include other kinds of weather conditions other than what we might kind of reasonably expect from this, which would be a question largely of cold and things that come with cold weather — snow and that. There would be other kinds of weather conditions? Does that also get captured by this in what might be extreme or different kinds of unique weather? Is that what the minister is thinking? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, we're not contemplating a whole bunch of other stuff. We're basically contemplating being able to react during severe cold weather with other weather conditions affecting it so that we would be able to put the plans in place in communities that didn't have plans or to make sure the plans were in place. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess there could be mitigating circumstances sometimes with regards to these. I don't have all of those answers today — what mitigating circumstances may have a group say to us: "In actual fact, even though it's not zero degrees tonight, we've got other mitigating things like wind and a very, very heavy rainfall and some other issues happening in our community, so that we would like to activate earlier." This gives us the latitude to be able to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 3 approved.
On section 4.
S. Simpson: Under "Delegation by minister," it talks about, in subsection (1), the minister being able to delegate to an ADM or to the CEO of B.C. Housing. In subsection (2) it talks about delegating authorities under subsection (1) in writing and "…may include any limits or conditions the minister considers advisable." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister give us some idea about what kinds of limits and conditions might be considered advisable there? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, I can. Basically, we talked about this earlier. I mean, we have to have somebody we can designate who is the minister's representative. That's why this reg identifies…. That's why earlier I said it's the ministry or B.C. Housing because I knew this reg was in here, to be able to have it either-or. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, the limits and conditions are that they would have to follow the protocols that are in place with regards to regulation as to what an extreme weather event is. If they wanted to go outside what was in regulation, they would have to talk to the minister. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1510]
S. Simpson: I mean, there's always some catch-all, I guess, for the minister to kind of be able to go out and make determinations outside, and the regulations might explain that to us later when they are prepared and released. Is the expectation in terms of the limits or conditions…? It's not so much that you might remove some authority from your designate as much as limiting their ability to go past or use greater discretion. Is that what the minister is saying? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, it's more a matter of clarity and, basically, transparency on the direction that's given to the person that's making these decisions. It also allows the practical operations of the law by allowing individuals other than the minister or deputy minister to issue and cancel alerts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I mean, you have to have the transparency of here's the regulation, here are the parameters, and this is the direction from you. You now have the authority to do this, and the transparency is that you have to follow through with that. That's basically saying why this designation is here, and that's why it also says that the minister "may include any limits or conditions the minister considers advisable" because that is making sure whatever the reg says and whatever the policy is, that that is the policy and reg that's being delivered. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 4 approved.
On section 5.
S. Simpson: Section 5(1) says: "If an extreme weather alert has been issued under section 2 or 3 and is in effect, a police officer may assess whether a person is a person at risk." What kinds of assessments will the police officer use to determine if somebody is a person at risk? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Section (2) basically outlines that assessment. If the alert has been in place, the first section says that if there's an alert in place, the police officer may assess whether a person is at risk. That gives them the authority to do the assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the assessment piece, which is the second section, it identifies that the person is in the geographical area covered by the alert. The person is 19 years of age or over, and in the opinion of the officer, the person is suffering physical harm or at risk of physical harm due to extreme weather conditions. Then, also, obviously it says that other conditions must be considered and that the risk assessment may be prescribed by regulation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We have some work on the regulations with our service providers to do, but this basically gives us the parameters to build that reg so that we can actually have it clear for the law enforcement community to understand it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The key to these, of course…. The geographical area is pretty much an easy one to determine. Whether somebody is 19 or not is a judgment call, but in most cases it will probably be pretty evident. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But 5(2)(c), "the person, in the opinion of the police officer, is suffering physical harm or is at risk of suffering physical harm because of the extreme weather conditions." Is the minister planning to…? What's the responsibility on the police to make that determination? Is there a liability at hand here for police who make that determination and decide, let's say, for example, that somebody seems to be doing okay, but it turns out they're not doing okay, and we suffer another tragic situation? Is there a liability on the police officer who has made that assessment if the assessment goes badly? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1515]
Hon. R. Coleman: As the member notes, this is enabling legislation, so the police officer has the latitude to make a decision. The legislation can be used or not. Police officers already have a duty of care, and this legislation, in our opinion and everything we've got, does not extinguish or add to the duty of care that already exists for police officers. It's just a tool for them — to have one more tool they can use to make a decision with regards to the assessment of an individual. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: We'll assume that in this instance the police are doing this, and if they choose to do this, they will use their best opinion. They will do that. I guess the question I have is: if a police officer enacts this part of the legislation, makes a judgment call, decides that somebody, in fact, isn't at risk for any number of good reasons, maybe, and in fact it turns out that that was an error, is there a liability for the police officer there under this legislation, or is there a liability under other legislation for the police officer? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, because the duty of care is the duty of care. It's there. Police officers have to make these assessments all the time. It's one of the biggest challenges of being a police officer, which I think people forget. They look and see somebody that does enforcements or investigations but don't realize that they're actually an individual who is asked by the public in many cases to go out on our streets and make a snap decision on maybe 15 or 20 or 30 seconds' information in situations that are highly dangerous to them and other people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're also asked to go out and be the front-line social worker and the front-line caregiver in many communities. They actually develop skills to assess people. They're also fallible, and so they may not get it right every time. But the fact of the matter is that they asked for some tools. This is an additional tool, but the duty of care is there either way when they come across somebody that's in distress or could be in distress. Their job is to try and deal with the situation as best as they can and do the assessment as best as they can. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If they make an assessment that they don't think somebody is at risk with regards to this particular piece of legislation, they would make it either way. They would make that assessment based on their experience and their abilities. I know, having done the job, that it's a tough one. I know that making the assessments is tough, and I have a lot of faith in these folks to try and make those to the best of their ability. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is just a tool to allow them to do one more thing out there, because they're asked to make the assessments on, basically, section 28 of the Mental Health Act. They're asked to make assessments with regards to people's drug addictions or their alcohol addictions, their mental illness, their health issues all the time. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This doesn't have them do any of that. It just basically in extreme weather conditions says: "In addition to what you see, because of the weather, is this person's life at risk, and do you feel that they need to come inside? Then you should talk to them about it and try and get them — and you have the authority to take them — to a shelter." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our assessment, as we went through those questions with regards to preparation of the legislation, is that it did not change what the member described. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us why the decision was made to have this be police…? Let me just back up one sec. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The minister has said in comments previously that nobody is being forced to do anything here, that the police will come and make an assessment of the individual. They may determine that they are at risk, and then they can use reasonable force — and we'll talk later about reasonable force — and take that individual to a shelter. Whether the person chooses to stay or leave the shelter is at their own discretion — as to whether they choose to stay at the shelter — though I don't actually see this in the bill, and we'll talk about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1520]
If that's the case, if you're not compelling people to stay at a shelter, could the minister tell us why this is exclusively police officers, and why there was not the engagement of community outreach workers, the people like on the committee, the organizations that do that work? It might be more appropriate in larger jurisdictions. But those people who do that work every day as outreach workers — why aren't they playing a role under this legislation, and why is it the police? Maybe the minister could explain why it's the police. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Everybody plays a role in this. There could be an outreach worker who says, "I have a person under the Granville Street bridge that I'm afraid will freeze to death tonight," and so calls the police. They've got the vehicles. They've got the training. They've got the ability to do this. It is a law…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've discussed this at length. The people that are out there on the streets doing the other work are partners with the police in all of this, and they would just contact the local police officer to say: "I think I've got a situation here." Police officers come and assess it. They talk to them. They talk to the individual, and they make the assessment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've chosen, whether the member…. We could discuss this all afternoon, but that's the decision we made as to who would have the authority, because that is the body that has authority for, basically, other forms of incarceration or arrest or compelling people to go to things and who are also trained to handle situations if they become difficult. So they are the folks that we feel should be the front line. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In talking to a number of chiefs, they felt the same way. They felt that an untrained person that didn't have the vehicle or that didn't have the ability to understand and to protect themselves in a different way with regards to someone who may have other issues would not be good for public safety. They felt that if there was going to be a power given, it could be to the police officer. So the police officer's opinion comes into it because they're the front-line worker that is dealing with this, and they also have the training. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: We know that there are community workers out there who deal with people who are homeless and with people who have other challenges around mental health and addictions and that every day. They're pretty skilled, generally, at dealing with those folks and pretty skilled at being able to assess them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The police, as the minister will know, are not social workers. That's not their job. They are law enforcement officers, and their job is to enforce the law and protect people's public safety and security. That's what they do best. I know that there is some concern on the part of some police about whether this is adding a role that may or may not make sense for them. But I'm sure they will do the job if it's the job that they're given. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the assessment that's being done…. This assessment may be an assessment around health. It may be an assessment in a number of areas. I know that in the case of mental health, it is not uncommon for the police, if they have a concern about mental health, to bring mental health workers in to make that assessment. Sometimes the police aren't prepared to do it themselves, unless of course there's an overt risk of some harm being done to somebody else or somebody doing harm to themselves, and then they intervene. But in other instances, they're inclined often to bring mental health support or outreach workers to play here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess the question I have is…. What we see under section 5, "Assessment if person is person at risk," is that nowhere in here does it talk about any of those people who bring skill sets that the police, quite frankly, don't have — and it's not their job to necessarily have. Nowhere in there does it require them to play a role in making that assessment for somebody, particularly somebody who's resistant to proceed to a shelter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If the police come upon somebody and say, "We have a shelter that we're prepared to take you to," and they say, "Hey, that's great. Let's go," that's one thing. If they come upon somebody who says, "I'm not interested" for any number of reasons and is resistant…. We'll probably talk about this later. It's in the assessment that they'll make this determination. Somebody who is resistant to proceed and go to the shelter, do the police…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1525]
The question is: why aren't they bringing, or why aren't the police obliged to bring, any of those other resources to the table in that assessment to determine whether, in fact, they should be proceeding to use that reasonable force that's talked about later on in the bill? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: They do that already. I mean, they have relationships with outreach workers. They have relations with other health providers. This provision, for the member's information, is very similar to the provision that already exists for law enforcement in the Mental Health Act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not like somebody has developed a new provision. The police today don't actually do their…. If there is a mental health issue, they take the person to a hospital, to medical practitioners, under section 28. In the case of someone like the situation we had in Vancouver last year, that wouldn't have qualified under section 28, and there was no authority to take them anywhere. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All this is, is a tool to say, "Let's give somebody the authority to take them, when they might be at risk of dying, to at least a shelter to make a decision whether they will come in from the cold during extreme weather conditions" — a very finite period of time with regards to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I know the member made the comment that they're not social workers. But I can tell you, if you ask people in the 23 SROs that we have in the Downtown Eastside, where each one is like a beat for the police officer and every one of our clients, they are more than just a police officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
But because of that relationship on the social side as well as the enforcement side, crime comes down, there are better results with regards to the people that may end up towards criminality, and the understanding of their issues is much stronger. Without that integration relationship in law enforcement with regards to those people at risk…. You fail the system if you think it's just going to be somebody in a uniform doing the route of certain things, because that's not the job that they deal with every day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Police, I guess, are like everybody else. Some of them are better at certain aspects of their job than they are at other aspects, the same as everybody else. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I've certainly talked to people on the street and people who work closely with those folks who are on the street. They tell me that some police officers function in the way that the minister has suggested, and they build collaborative relationships with homeless people, with people who are in distress. They build those relationships and have some confidence of those people. Other police officers, not so much. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know as well that in the instance of folks who are resistant — for reasons that may be sound or not, but people who are resistant — and concerned about interaction with the police, particularly if they think they're going to be taken away somewhere by this, there can be conflict there. That may be conflict that isn't necessarily going to occur with somebody who isn't in uniform. Maybe sometimes it's the relationship of the uniform that does it and may have absolutely nothing to do with the individual officer, their personality and their ability to engage. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Again, I guess the question I have here is on the narrowness of this assessment process, to narrow it down to putting that obligation on the police officers to make that assessment, particularly in the instance of somebody who is resistant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Clearly, again, for somebody who they assess is at risk, they say: "Hey, do you know that we've got a shelter you can go to?" The person says: "Great, take me." I'm appreciative of that. Obviously, it's a non-issue, and they're happy to get a ride. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the case of somebody who is not so inclined, or somebody who is concerned about their goods, and their goods may or may not…. I know that hasn't been sorted out entirely — at least, it's not in the bill — about their goods and whether they go with them or other concerns they have about going with the police in a voluntary way. They have other challenges. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1530]
The question, again, I have is: is there any tool here, or what tools are available to the police, to be able to have that broader assessment done before they get to using the reasonable force that we'll talk about in a minute? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: So it's two o'clock in the morning. It's 10 below zero. Somebody's going to freeze to death, and the member would like us to phone the mental health worker and this person and that person to come down to do an assessment as to whether somebody should be told that they have to go to a shelter or at least to the door of a shelter. That's probably a philosophical debate that we could do all afternoon. I'm fine with that. I'll deal with the questions as they come at the end of each one of those debates. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact of the matter is that you cannot…. The comments the member made about some good police officers, some bad police officers. You could say the same thing about great nurses and not so great nurses, or doctors or mental health workers or whatever the case. Everybody brings a level of expertise to the job they do. Some are better at it than others. But the one thing I know we can't do is legislate perfect behaviour in this world, because if we'd learned that, we would have done it a long time ago. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What we can do is legislate opportunities to have tools to try and address some problems and help people. That's all this is. This is a tool. It's one more tool in the tool box for a law enforcement officer and the communities that support them in the jobs that they do to be able to do one thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Other than that, I'm not going to get into a lengthy, I guess, debate about how the police forces of B.C. operate and that sort of thing. I did that in another life, in a previous ministry. This is really about a tool that we felt was necessary to develop, in conjunction with the communities we talked to. There are always people that will say nay to some things and yea to others. You have to decide which policy you're going to take. We've taken this direction, so the tool is there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The tool, I believe, will be used in a judicious manner, because I have a huge amount of faith in the rank-and-file police officers in British Columbia and their ability to actually implement and use this in a judicious manner when it's necessary to save someone's life. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I think that what this debate is about is not so much the police officer there or not. The challenge that police have, obviously, is that they are who they are, and some people, particularly street folks, respond differently to police because of who they are and because of what they represent. That creates challenges for police officers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As the minister says and as I said previously, some police officers will deal with that in a different fashion, some better than others. Some — that's their skill set. Some — not so much. Some have other skill sets. The issue with this legislation is that I think we would all say: how do we maximize the opportunities in extreme weather situations to put the maximum amount of people into shelters and get them off the street, and what's the most effective way to do that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The debate we're having here is whether this legislation helps or hinders that process. It's my view that this hinders the process and will do more harm than good in terms of getting people off the street. It will do more harm than it will do good in the long run. That's the debate we're having. The debate isn't necessarily the specifics of the police. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question here…. It's at two o'clock in the morning that the minister talks about that. We know that in many communities, again, there are people who are challenged. Is there a concern here on the part of the minister…? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This concern has been raised by people in the community. It's been raised by people who work with folks on the street. We've heard this commentary in relation to this bill — that folks who are homeless and who may, for any number of reasons, be resistant to the objectives of this legislation and who absolutely could be at risk in severe weather are going to be inclined to look for ways to avoid the police and avoid that assessment that may trigger them being obliged to do things they do or don't like. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1535]
Has the minister received any advice about whether that is a potential problem? How does that get dealt with, or what supports does the ministry provide to try to seek out those people who may look to go further underground? It's not a large number, I don't believe, but the minister has based a lot of his defence of this legislation on the tragic death of one individual. We're sure that there is more than one individual out there who will go farther underground to avoid this situation. I'm sure the minister doesn't want any tragedy with them either. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Has the minister had any advice and what kinds of advice has he had about whether this may in fact drive people further underground? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: It's a theoretical comment by the member with regards to the legislation. The legislation, the Assistance to Shelter Act, is a tool that describes the circumstance it can be applied. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not going to get into a debate about what may or may not happen in an individual's case. The member knows very well that people that deal drugs try to avoid the police. People do all kinds of things to try and avoid different authority figures. This is a tool to help someone that is clearly on our street in severe weather conditions. The police officer comes across them and has the opportunity to help. They have the authority to take them to a shelter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The rest of it is all…. Frankly, it was probably second reading debate and isn't relevant to the section of the legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: did he consult or did his officials consult with people in the community who work directly with the homeless? Did he consult with anybody in determining that the police were the best people to do this assessment of a person at risk? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, we talked to different people, like police chiefs, social workers and people in the communities, but in addition to that, we have a huge body of information within our own ministry. We have outreach workers and social workers that deal with people every day. As we came through this thing last year, the whole discussion took place within government — the discussion with regards to whether we should try and do something — and this is what we decided to do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister talked about internal consultation with the body of knowledge that rests within the ministry, and I respect that body of knowledge. He talked about the consultations with law enforcement. He talked about social workers. I don't know whether those were social workers within the ministry or whether they were people external to the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Did the ministry consult around this use of police as the exclusive body in this legislation — the exclusive enforcement organization, the police, for Bill 18? Did he consult with folks who work in the community in the non-profit sector, in the non-governmental sector, that works on the street with homeless people? Did he or did his officials consult, and what advice did he receive from them about this notion of the police as the exclusive body for this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: As the member knows, a draft of this legislation became public a number of months ago. We've had a robust input from all kinds of people, frankly, from all aspects of the public, with regard to this, in addition to our own consultations and in addition to working with law enforcement. If the member were to just go back to the press release that announced that we were actually going to introduce the act, you had two significant leaders in law enforcement in British Columbia who were quoted in the press release. Obviously, there was some buy-in there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This section deals, basically, with the criteria for police to do the assessment on a person with regards to it. It's pretty clear what it is. I've explained that to the member. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We don't give statutory authority to people like outreach workers. We had to come up with statutory authority for police to be able to move someone to shelter, and that's why it's done this way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1540]
S. Simpson: We know. We did have information that previously came out. Of course, part of the challenge with the previous information that came out is that it suggested incarceration of people who weren't prepared to go to a shelter and that they may potentially be thrown in jail. That particular aspect of the previous piece of work that the minister references kind of absorbed everybody's attention because of what was considered the outrageous nature of that particular aspect of that. It sort of absorbed all the oxygen on that discussion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I had was not around the question of law enforcement officers. I appreciate very much that law enforcement was consulted in this. The minister has said that, and I understand that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's also not a question of giving statutory authority to anybody else. It's a question of having had a conversation with people who do this work on the street every day for reputable organizations that do this work on the street every day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm not talking about folks who would protest every turn of what the government does or the police do, and there certainly are people who do that. But there are very credible, reputable groups out there who work every day with homeless people on the street and look to try to find ways to get them into shelters, to get them into other services, to make their lives better, to deal with these issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I had is: did the minister receive advice that suggested that police officers were not the appropriate body to be doing this assessment? And if he did receive that advice…. Maybe we'll start with: did he receive any advice from those organizations, if he consulted with them, that police officers were not the appropriate people to do this assessment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The only people who thought somebody was going to be incarcerated were those who were inflaming the issue, because it wasn't in any of our documentation at the time. So let's be clear about that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You chose, and others chose within your party, to go out and say that we were going to lock people up, but it wasn't true, and at no time have you ever corrected the record. I'll give you that opportunity to correct it today. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At the same time, this section 5 describes the criteria for the police assessment that a person is at risk under this act — who they are, under an extreme weather alert, when it's been issued and other factors. That's what this section is dealing with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is not about what consultation took between what organization you wish to dream up to today. It is about section 5 of the act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Just in response to the minister's comments, there in fact are discussion documents out there that come out of the government that talk exactly about that incarceration. The reality is that the government backtracked on doing that because they knew they couldn't get away with it. I think it was fully this minister and this government's intention to do exactly that until counsel told them they couldn't do it. I wouldn't back off that, because it is true. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With that, I'll sit and let section 5 pass. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 5 approved.
On section 6.
S. Simpson: Section 6 is the "Request to go to emergency shelter or accommodation." For those who may be paying attention to this debate, this is the section that says that if a police officer has made an assessment under section 5 and they have determined somebody to be a person at risk, the police officer has a number of things they can request. They can request that the person at risk choose to accompany the police officer to an emergency shelter or go unaccompanied to an emergency shelter or another accommodation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So under this, am I to understand, then, that if a police officer talks to somebody who is deemed to be at risk and says, "Sir, I think you're in a desperate situation here. You're in a bad situation. You should go to a shelter. Here's the address of shelter X" — the closest appropriate shelter, possibly — "Here's the address of the shelter," and if the person says, "Yeah, I'll go to the shelter," then that's the end of the conversation? They have said, "Yes, I'll go to the shelter," and the police officers then leave? What do the police do to deal with this situation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1545]
Hon. R. Coleman: This section provides that prior to taking a person to a shelter involuntarily, the police officer asks the person to choose to go voluntarily to an accommodation. It is an important choice for the individual to have and enables them to take shelter independently to ensure their own safety. That's what this allows. Basically, the police officer has to provide that opportunity first, and either way, on either side, it doesn't extinguish the duty of care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So to understand the practical application of this…. Again, then, if I'm on the street, a police officer comes and says to me: "I think you should be going. It's 10 below tonight" — or whatever it is — " and you don't have proper protection from the weather. I want you to go to a shelter. The shelter is three, four blocks down the street. I want you to go to that shelter…." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If I say to the police officer, "Yeah, okay, I'll go to the shelter," then is the police officer done with me? If he accepts, then, that I've said, "Yeah, I'll go to the shelter," and he goes on to other duties and responsibilities, then whether I am in fact good for my word or not is up to me? How does the police officer determine whether I in fact went to the shelter? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think at that point some personal responsibility has been taken by the individual, and the police officer would probably move on because they've said they're going to shelter. Now, if an hour or two later they came back and the person hadn't moved, then they might not take their word the second time — but certainly the first time. I think that's where the judgment of the police officer comes into it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's important to understand that both police officers and outreach workers that are out…. Remember, this is an extreme weather condition that's been triggered, and it has to be triggered for even this legislation to be in force. When it's triggered, oftentimes people who are on the streets do not know where the additional shelter space is that is triggered and opened up in those circumstances. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So it's part of the education side of them, it's part of the opportunity to explain to them where they can go, and it's a part of the opportunity to be able to have the opportunity for the person to make the choice to go to the shelter of their own independence, for their own safety. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I think that having somebody…. I imagine this is actually more of a community role, but the police would have that list as well. Because what happens, I assume, when extreme weather shelters are in place is that it takes a little bit of time –– not too much, but a little bit of time –– for the word to get around to people who are on the street as to where those shelters are. The trapline is pretty good. The word gets around pretty quickly as to where shelters are and their availability, so lots of people know, and there are lots of people who will give them advice — their peers, among others — about where the shelters are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is there any condition here? It speaks to concerns that were raised in second reading, that the request to go to a shelter or accommodation…. There is the issue of possessions, an individual's possessions — or maybe they have a pet, whatever — those kinds of items that people should not reasonably be expected to leave behind. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is the expectation about how that issue gets addressed in terms of people's possessions with the request under 6(1)(a) to accompany a police officer to emergency shelter? How do people's possessions get addressed if this request is moving ahead and somebody says: "I'm happy to go to the shelter, but I won't go to the shelter without my stuff"? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We have work ongoing right now with B.C. Housing and in communities to address the issues the member has addressed, before the winter, and it will include issues like we already have had with the experience of carts and pets through our HEAT shelters last winter. The relationship of the SPCA with regards to pets and storage of carts and where we can do it and all of that work is ongoing right now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1550]
S. Simpson: As the minister I'm sure would agree, that's a pretty critical piece of work to be completed so that a person on the street has confidence, either that their goods and their possessions are going to come with them or they're going to be secured in a way that the person can have a reasonable amount of confidence, that at the end of their shelter stay they'll be able to come back and their stuff will be there in the condition that they left it and safe for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is the timeline? Not wanting to get into the detail…. I understand this is regulation. This would be one of the areas that I know I referenced earlier. The Non-Profit Housing Association is passing this resolution today at their annual conference. I don't believe for a minute, as the minister had referenced…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This wasn't about every group in that association wanting to be part of that discussion, but it was the vast majority of those groups in that association knowing full well that this is a discussion that has to occur and that there need to be solutions put in place with those of their members who actually have an acute interest and expertise in this area. That's what that resolution was saying. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So the question I have is: when might that piece of work be done? And is there an assurance that that question will be resolved before it's expected that this legislation will actually have to be used on the ground? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Today it already is, for the most part. I'll give you a number of examples. In Vancouver 15 shelters accept carts, and ten accept pets today. That is a huge expansion from where it was just a year or so ago. In communities across B.C..... In addition to that, we have them in Squamish. In the Fraser region we have shelters. We have shelters in Abbotsford, Chilliwack, Hope, Burnaby, Surrey and White Rock that accept both pets and carts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We also have shelters in Hope and other places like Abbotsford and in the Tri-Cities that accept carts only. Sometimes it's just because of the issue with regards to construction of buildings. They're accepted at three places in Victoria for carts and pets. They're also, on Vancouver Island, accepted in Nanaimo, Port Alberni, Duncan and also in Victoria for carts only. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are continuing to expand that capacity. As we design the strategy for this winter, we recognize that it is one of the things that will encourage people to come inside. We have managed to find ways to secure the carts and actually take care of the other issues that could come with them by making sure the rooms are heated to a certain temperature so that things like bugs can't transfer and survive and that sort of thing. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
All of those things are things we've learned in our shelter strategy over the last three years. We're going continue to do that into this winter. We're going to continue to accommodate more and more as we see fit and take care of the issue with regards to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I'm pleased and glad that an increasing number of shelters are being developed or are designing their efforts to be able to accommodate carts, pets, people's possessions, whatever they might be. Hopefully, that will continue to expand. I know in the city of Vancouver, which is the community I know best, that in fact is the case, and I know there's a fair amount of attention being paid to expanding the number of groups there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question I had was around transport. This section talks about accompanying police officers to an emergency shelter. Once folks are there with their stuff…. It's understandable that the shelter may be designed in such a way as to support that. The question is that police, a couple of cops in a car, are going to take somebody. It may or may not be at all practical for them to take a shopping cart in that car. It may or may not be, depending on just the capacity to do that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is the thinking or the work of the ministry to find a way to ensure that at that end, actually moving people and their goods, that their goods get moved? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: As I said earlier to the member, we're working on that too. That's what we're doing, going into this winter — for that capacity, the ability to do that as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1555]
S. Simpson: Can the minister give us some idea of what the options might be? Not what the decisions are — I understand that those are regulation. That's a matter for cabinet decision — recommendation and cabinet decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister give us an idea of what the options are or some of the variety of options that might be available to deal with that question of how the goods come when somebody accompanies a police officer to a shelter under 6(1)(a)? What are the choices? How might that occur, that their goods get there? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: This isn't a regulation. The partnerships are being built now through the discussions we're having with the community. The resources are being applied, and we're working through the operational details. That's what we're doing over the next month or so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Then, if it's not a regulation, we can have a more fulsome discussion. Is the minister suggesting that the government is prepared, say, in the case of a situation like Vancouver, to put up some extra resources so that the police can…. They come, and they want me to come to a shelter, and I say: "Yeah, okay, I'll come to the shelter, but I got all this stuff here. I've got my two carts tied together, with everything I own." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is the minister saying: "Yeah, well then the police can…? There's a number that they can call? We've provided some resources for somebody to pop out from a non-profit up the street and put the stuff in a van and take it to wherever it goes?" Is the government talking about putting resources in to make that happen, putting dollars on the table in communities to allow that to happen? Is that the intention? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I've told the member that we're working on that now. We're working on that now. I can't give you the entire operational side of this because I actually have people working on it as we develop both the legislation and the regulation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You should know that we actually do some of this now, as well, where we actually have vehicles that will come and take the cart for the individual to a particular shelter. We're looking at how we expand it, how we manage it, how it fits into the extreme weather strategy. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Remember, again, Member, that this is a finite period of time with the extreme weather strategy with regards to this issue in and around carts. We're looking at our resources, how we would manage them, where they would be mustered, how they would be dealt with so that we can deal with that issue. I assure the member that that work is going on right now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I continue to ask that question because that's the question that gets asked, or it's one of a number of questions. There are also questions around civil rights and civil liberties and other matters, of course. But that is one of the compelling questions that gets asked. It's a concern that I share — how these matters get dealt with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Lots of people, I think, are looking for an answer that gives them some comfort that isn't there. Part of that is this concern about the fact that this is all so much in regulation and in discussions that aren't reflected in the legislation itself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Under section 6(2), the accommodation…. It talks about other accommodation. What is it that the government was thinking about, as other accommodation? It provides some general suggestions: "...to which a person at risk can secure entry…;" and a "…person at risk is entitled or permitted to reside;" and "…is a structure, vehicle or vessel primarily designed to be used as living quarters and provides protection from physical harm or risk of physical harm due to extreme weather conditions…." We'll talk about what "other prescribed conditions" are. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1600]
Could the minister give us an idea of what the thinking is around this and what that might include, other than when the police come and talk to me, me saying: "Well, maybe I can go to my friend Joe's house and sleep on his couch"? Other than that, what might this include? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, it means that the accommodation has to be real. We do have some people, for instance, that are street involved, who would be out on the street in these circumstances and be in a state of intoxication or whatever and who actually have an SRO room that they could go back to. They could say that, and that would be fine, but the accommodation has to be real. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's not a case of just saying: "Thank you very much." It gives the definition to the flexibility to understand what accommodation is available. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Madam Chair, could we take a five-minute recess, please? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Committee will recess for five minutes. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The committee recessed from 4:01 p.m. to 4:08 p.m.
[C. Trevena in the chair.]
S. Simpson: In regard to other accommodation, it talks in the section about accompanying the police to that other accommodation. Would it be the expectation of the minister that the police would then have to determine that that was appropriate accommodation? And I use that term loosely. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, and I think subsection (2) outlines it correctly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So then they pull up to a building or whatever. Is it the expectation of the minister that the police would escort the person, as they would presumably escort the person into the shelter — as we know, they could choose to stay or leave the shelter —or into that accommodation, to satisfy themselves that it was accommodation and that they weren't going in the front door and out the back door of a building? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The police will know where the shelters are. They'll know that it's a shelter when they take them there, so they would be able to easily make the assumption that it's proper accommodation. Otherwise we wouldn't be funding it or having it open. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1610]
S. Simpson: I think this fits under section 6. Otherwise I can ask it under 7, but I think it fits under 6. We know there are a number of people who are on the street, maybe folks who would be less inclined to enter a shelter of their own volition and might be more inclined to want to stay away for any number of reasons. Also, some of them are challenging. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This raises the question about the shelters themselves. There are people, the minister will know, who have been barred from some shelters because of their conduct when they've been in the facility or because the shelter operators are concerned that the individual may be a risk to other people in the shelter in some fashion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
How do the police…? When they're determining to take somebody to a shelter, when we get them to accompany somebody to a shelter, how does that interaction work? How do the police know, with somebody who may be particularly challenging that they're taking at least to the door, that they're taking them to the door of a shelter where…? If there is a problem there, how does that get dealt with? How do the police deal with that matter? What's that relationship? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We can do all kinds of theoretical situations, but I can tell the member that we have a variety of shelters, particularly in the community he lives in — some where a person of a certain type of risk would be more successful than in others. Working with the outreach workers and the community workers, the police have a pretty good assessment of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Obviously, there are going to be situations where a person is not going to go in for whatever reason, and that's going to be the choice that they have. I think our choice is to try and at least get them there to make an informed decision to come in from the cold. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I guess we could spend the next hour or two just giving me every hypothetical situation where something might not be perfect, but I can't actually create a perfect world. The reality is that this is a tool that's there to be able to take someone from the street to a shelter in a severe cold-wet weather situation where the weather is so extreme that they could die from exposure on the street. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The act clearly says that they accompany the police officer to an emergency shelter. We have emergency shelters. Those are added to whenever the weather changes, and we add even more when the weather is even more extreme. Those folks know they're dealing with a population that they may not be familiar with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
You talk about a shelter provider that's had an experience with a particular person coming to a shelter. The shelter, if it was an extreme weather shelter, may never ever come in contact with this individual, because it's only open for four, five or six days and then closes again. It's not a 24-7-365 shelter, necessarily, that they're going to. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The hypotheticals can be all over the map, but the reality is that we invest tens of millions of dollars in shelters, emergency shelters, cold weather strategies and extreme weather strategies for shelter for folks. We want people to have the opportunity to access those, based on the fact that their life might be at risk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
There's always going to be one hypothetical, one way or the other, where something may not work perfectly. That's why we have committees and people working on this pretty regularly to see how we can improve the process, the services and the assessment of people. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you had someone that was, as the member described, going to the other extreme, I think that probably, if anything else, it gives more fundamentals for the police officer to deal with section 28 of the Mental Health Act in that particular circumstance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1615]
S. Simpson: Hon. Chair, the minister may think it's hypothetical. I don't think it's a hypothetical situation at all. The minister has told us previously that he strolls the streets in the Downtown Eastside every few weeks or so to talk to people. I'm sure the minister has met or observed people who have numbers of challenges in that community, and that's only one. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the minister is correct. In Vancouver there are a variety of choices. The police would have options about being able to take people to different shelters, and some shelters obviously are better equipped to deal with people who are more difficult to deal with than other shelters. They have that capacity. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This question probably applies more in communities that are not all that large. What will happen in a number of instances there, as the minister would know, is that there will be a shelter operator. You'll have a cold weather alert. There will be extra resources provided, and that shelter operator may end up expanding what they do and operating some other facilities on behalf of the community because they know how to do that and operating some additional facilities for the cold weather period. So they'll be asked to bring their expertise as a shelter operator to the table because there may only be one or two shelters in a community, and you're expanding that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This would be a person who's dealing with difficult people. Difficult people in these circumstances are not unique, and I would expect the minister knows that. The minister has said that the objective of this is to get people off the street in difficult weather and that the police are going to do this. It isn't now a question of police or no police. But what happens in the instance when the police take somebody who agrees to accompany them or they take them in another fashion, and the shelter has a difficulty with that person because of previous conduct? What do the police do with that person then? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: That's when the police would work with the ministry of employment and income assistance with regards to finding other shelter opportunities for them. We do have the ability to have a number of things with regards to folks like that. We can have emergency rent supplements put in place for them to go into some other form of shelter if they're not able to be accommodated there. We have the ability to give them the shelter portion of their income assistance or emergency assistance if we can find a place for them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They could also at that stage, obviously, if they have a difficulty and there's a significant mental concern, deal with the Mental Health Act and take them to hospital or whatever the case may be. This is, as I've said all through this debate, one tool in the tool box with regards to this, and all of those other tools exist. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Just bouncing back a little bit to the other accommodation question. Section 6(2)(d) — and it gives the list that the minister talked about. We talked about what those things might be, and they might be somebody else's home or an SRO or whatever. It says: "that meets…other prescribed conditions." Could the minister tell us what those other prescribed conditions might be? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: At this time, there are none. This is just an enabling provision as we come through this. There are no additional conditions that have been deemed necessary to define this accommodation at this stage, but this would allow government to further define accommodation to ensure the legislation meets its goals of protecting people. It does allow us, in the future, to add things through experience that may help to improve our ability to define that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 6 approved.
On section 7.
[1620]
S. Simpson: Section 7 is the section that in some ways is probably the most challenging for some people who have concerns about this. Section 7 is a brief section. It says "Transport to emergency shelter," and it says: "If a person at risk refuses to comply with or fails to respond to the police officer's request under section 6, the police officer, using reasonable force if necessary, may transport the person at risk to an emergency shelter." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us what "reasonable force" is under this legislation? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: All police forces in British Columbia have extensive policies on the use of force. The force being used by the officer must follow the law, follow policy and be in proportion to the situation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Each situation is different and must be looked at on its own. When the member asked earlier why we would deal with police forces on this, it is because they already have that. There is anticipated that very little force would be authorized in these situations. The legislation is explicit in asserting a test of reasonableness in the exercise of force. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister says it would be his belief that very little force would be authorized. So what's the expectation? Who will authorize that force? Will that be individual police departments that will authorize it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'll repeat myself. All police forces in B.C. have extensive policies on the use of force. They continue to do this on a regular basis as any piece of legislation is developed, and this would be no different in this particular case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The force being used by the officer must follow the law, follow policy and be in proportion to the situation. As each situation is different, it must be looked at on its own. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I didn't say that I said anything in my comment. I said it is anticipated that very little force would be authorized in these situations. So the police forces will develop the policy around the use of force relative to this legislation once it's passed by the House, and they will have it in place before the legislation is actually put in place to do its job. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Will the ministry be asking those police forces that are developing…? I would hope the minister is correct that we'd be talking about very little force would be used in any circumstances here. That would be the hope. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Would the minister or the ministry be encouraging those police forces to in fact consult with the community, consult with those organizations that are identified in earlier sections — committees or community representatives who are playing a role around this? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Would it be the expectation that there would be some consultation with the police, who ultimately have the final say on this matter, about what that minimal amount of force might be in these circumstances? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No. Police are independent authorities. They are not told by any government or anybody else how to do their job. That's why we have police forces that operate the way they do. The minute we decide to tell people how to investigate, do their job as police officers, is the day that we no longer have policing as an independent operation within our society. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Well, I can't think of a time in our history more than the last year or so when there have been serious questions about the use of reasonable force by a number of police forces. We had that discussion today in question period in regard to a case a number of years ago. There obviously is the Dziekanski case. There are other instances where there are serious questions about the use of force and when it's in play. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Maybe it's not the Minister of Housing and Social Development's role to do this. I accept that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Then my question would be this. Is the minister consulting with his colleague the Solicitor General to have discussions with police about what the police's expectation — not the Solicitor General's necessarily — is about what levels of reasonable force might in fact be reasonable in this case? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1625]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yes, we have spoken to the Solicitor General and his people and to police services. But remember this: these people are not enforcing a law or an offence, but are providing assistance. They're given the authority to provide assistance to shelter. That's what they're getting. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The basis of reasonable force is that it must be proportional to the facts. Any force has to be proportional to the facts. The officer, in any circumstance, must use that. This is not enforcing a law or offence but providing assistance. Therefore, any use of force would be minimal. It is really about: "You have to come with me because the law says I can take you to the shelter." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I don't know whether maybe this question…. I'm sure the ministry has looked at this, so I'll just ask the question. If somebody resists the police in this instance and says, "I don't want to go with you. Leave me alone" — and maybe some people get a little aggressive but resist, and obviously the police are able to handle that situation; they're pretty good at that — could somebody potentially then be open to being charged for resisting a police officer? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, hon. Member, because they're not enforcing an offence or enforcing a law. They're providing assistance that the law allows them to do to assist people to shelter. So there's no resistance of an arrest taking place here. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Well, I guess that's a matter of interpretation. The police can interpret what constitutes an assault against a police officer. It can sometimes be a pretty modest action — and so it should be — that can constitute an assault against a police officer, if they choose. That's not a bad thing, but they can choose to do that. I do assume that, of course, becomes a criminal offence unto itself, and then the police would be able to take the actions they would in any case of an assault. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reason I ask that question is because the minister wants to portray this as the delivery of a service. The delivery of a service, in the view of people who have spoken to me, would be having community outreach workers out there doing the work to encourage people into shelters. It would not be giving police the authority to use reasonable force to oblige somebody to come to a shelter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So there's going to be some resistance in some isolated cases — not a lot, I expect, but in some isolated cases. Somebody, I assume, could potentially face an assault charge if the police chose to do that — depending on the conduct of the person and if it warranted that. Would that be fair? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I'll repeat myself. They're not enforcing a law or an offence but providing assistance. The basis of reasonable force is that it must be proportional to the facts. The member is now asking me to get into a debate about what is an assault on a police officer. It is not in this section and has nothing to do with this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It is criminal. The theoretical discussion about when or under what circumstances an assault would take place and who would define it…. Now you're into the whole issue around Crown counsel and the likelihood of conviction and all of those things that have nothing to do with this piece of legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The section says: "…using reasonable force if necessary, may transport the person at risk to an emergency shelter." I see that the word is "may" not "shall." Could the minister tell us: does that mean this whole piece of legislation is at the discretion of the police, and if the police choose not to enforce this section of the legislation, then they are free not to enforce it? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I guess after two hours, a light just went on. What I said at the beginning, what I said in second reading, is that this an enabling piece of legislation. That's why it says all the way through "may." It is at the option of the police officer to use the act at their discretion. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1630]
It is not something that says "must." It says "may." It's enabling. It's a tool to be able to take someone — basically by providing them assistance under the law — to a shelter to see if we can save their life in extreme cold weather situations. The discretion is with the police. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Just so we're clear. This is hypothetical, and I know that the minister doesn't like hypothetical situations, but I'll raise one anyway. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If, for example, the city of Vancouver police department made the decision as a policy decision — the chief or the senior officers made the determination and the decision — that this was not a role that they wanted their officers to play, and they directed their officers not to engage, not to do anything different than they do today, not to engage section 7, not to require anybody to accompany them anywhere…. The city of Vancouver police could make that decision, and those aspects of this legislation would for those purposes be moot in terms of what occurs in the city of Vancouver. Would that be correct? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: This will be a piece of legislation. It will be a law. It will be a tool for the police officer, the individual police officer, to use. They have a law that says they can do it. Still, in either way, no matter how they apply it as a policy, it does not extinguish the law, nor does it extinguish the duty of care. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Fair enough. It's a law. Well, it's legislation today. It will presumably be a law sometime soon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The law says that police will urge people to go to a shelter. If they choose not to go to the shelter, the police will use reasonable force to escort that person to the shelter that they may or may not choose to stay at after they get there. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The question is…. If a police department was to say: "This is not a law that we intend to enforce because we have other things to do with our time. We already do work in terms of the homeless. We think there are people better equipped to do it than us" — any number of reasons — "and we are not going to enforce section 7 of this law that says we will use reasonable force…." At the point when somebody says, "I'm not coming with you," the police will have given their best advice. They will have made the offer, and they will not use that force or oblige or take somebody to the shelter. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's a decision that individual police officers can make. I believe that's what the minister said, though I'm sure he'll correct me if I misrepresented him. The individual police officers can take. Is it also a position that a chief of police or the appropriate designated authority within a police department could take to direct his or her officers to not enforce that piece of the legislation or of the law? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: In no place in this legislation does it say "the Vancouver police department may," "the RCMP may," or "the Vancouver police department may tell people to — may or may not." It says "a police officer may." No police department can just decide tomorrow that they're going to take away the authority that government has given them to use a tool that the law gives them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1635]
From my perspective, hon. Member, the police officer may use this tool if they wish it by providing assistance to shelter at the basis of reasonable force, which is proportional to the facts. That is what this section is about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister will know, and the minister raised this in his second reading debate. He talked about charter challenges and those things. Much of the discussion that has occurred around the potential of a challenge of the legitimacy of this law has come in relation to section 7 and this notion of this use of force to take somebody against their will to a shelter — not to oblige them to stay there, necessarily, but certainly to be able to take them to the shelter — where that individual would make a decision about whether they wanted to stay or not. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That's where there has been some question about the issue of this. People have referenced it in terms of some kind of legal challenge. I don't want to discuss the merits of whether that does or doesn't make sense in this debate. The question I have for the minister is: has the minister received a legal opinion in regard to that question of the potential of a challenge to section 7? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Anytime we do a piece of legislation, we always ask for the risk with regard to these situations, and we've done that in this case too. Is there a possibility that there could be? Well, with any piece of legislation there's a possibility that there could be. Is it possible that a challenge could be successful? That's also a possibility. Any challenge to a piece of legislation could be a success. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We measure it on the basis, I guess, of the balance of probabilities and say: "If we do this legislation, is it a likelihood that it could happen?" Maybe; maybe not. If it does, are we prepared to believe that what we're trying to do is correct? We are. I said to one person, who asked me with regard to the charter in this legislation, that I don't think this would be an unhealthy discussion for Canadians. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
To decide whether a person that is providing protection to people in communities — whether they be outreach workers who have seen somebody die before their eyes or a police officer who has to live with the death of a person because they didn't have a tool — versus the choice of a person to not go to a shelter and put their life at risk…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Maybe someday that may be a healthy argument for the courts to take. I don't think that would be unhealthy for our Canadian society to decide, to find out whether we have a right to care, whether we have a right to protect someone, or whether we have the right to step up and do some things for folks so that they will survive a cold weather snap, in this particular case. Or an attempted suicide, maybe in other legislation or other things that could happen, or people who have an illness like dementia, and their rights…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I suppose at some point in time you have to balance in Canada what are the rights of all. The right is also, I think, to the people that are out there trying to care for people to have the right to know that governments at least tried to give them a tool so that they could try and do their job to save a life and so that they can, you know, live their life thinking they did the best that they could do too. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So whether there's a debate…. I'm not going to have it today because obviously the legislation hasn't passed. When the legislation is passed, and if and when it has to be used…. If it's used and somebody chooses to challenge it, then that could go through the court system, and we'll find out the answer to those questions. But we don't have them at the date of preparing legislation. We know that with any legislation we do have some risks, and this one is no different. We think the risks are worth taking if we happen to save a few lives. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 7 approved.
On section 8.
S. Simpson: Section 8, for people who may be paying attention to this, is the section that lays out regulations. It lays out a whole series of areas related to the legislation where, in fact, through order-in-council, regulations will be written, much of the substantive detail of the bill will be written. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1640]
It deals with matters around describing the definitions of extreme weather conditions. It talks about some of the definitions related to police, prescribing those classes of constables for the purposes of the definition of a police officer; the manner of issuing and cancelling alerts; how notifications of alerts will occur; how geographic areas get identified; considerations for a police officer when making an assessment under section 5, which is of the person at risk; and a number of areas, including matters related to section 6 and conditions under section 6. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We had talked before about consultation a little bit, and the minister had said that in the drafting of the legislation there had been consultation with law enforcement and with a series of people within the ministry. The minister referenced other consultation, but it wasn't totally clear as to who that consultation was with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now that we're very close, presumably, to having Bill 18 become law, could the minister tell us what his expectation is around consultation in these areas? He can give a general answer, and we may have to get more detailed, but a general answer. How is the consultation going to work to get answers to some of these questions? What's his expectation around that? The detail of this will go a long way to determining what, if any, success the actual law will have at the end of the day. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: My answer doesn't change from section 4 or whatever other section we talked about to the member opposite. You know, all over British Columbia and in regions all over British Columbia we have community committees that are already established, that have already established what the protocols are for extreme weather. If I could describe extreme weather just so everybody gets it, it's the weather at a level that somebody's going to freeze to death or die of exposure on the streets of British Columbia, and we want them to come inside. I think that would be the definition. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The reality is that we're going to get to a regulation that takes all of that into account and, as I described earlier, tied into two regions in the province — one that's more coastal and humid. You know, in more humid climates when the temperature is lower, it's actually harder on the body than it is at a lower temperature and a drier climate. We all know that. We will tie into things like, basically, the forecast that would occur within 24 hours, according to people like Environment Canada. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
These weather conditions would be consistent with the community-based plans in those areas of the province, and the temperatures that we would identify would be also consistent within those geographical areas where we already have the community-based plans in place for the extreme weather. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So those are the fundamentals that we will run this by. That is what I said earlier. That will reflect that, and the regulation will reflect that, because that's the information we have in relation to two things. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Remember, this is a situation where when we know we have a severe weather situation, we activate this protocol. It's activated today across British Columbia in these regions now by the committees. We're just going to expand it so it's into all the other communities in the same regions. At that stage of the game we know what the protocol is, and it just allows us to clarify and make sure everybody transparently knows what the protocol is in one region versus another based on that information that we're already using today to make those decisions. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I'm just going down a bit. Maybe the minister could clarify a little bit. Section 8(2)(b), "prescribing designated policing units for the purposes of the definition of 'police force.'" Could the minister clarify "policing units"? Is he talking about different police departments and different jurisdictions? Is that what that is? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1645]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, thanks to the member. I thought we would get to this eventually. So the regulation is going to designate something like the South Coast British Columbia Transportation Authority police services as a police force, ensuring that the transit police would also be able to do this — enable to assist people to shelter. Because they're a new police force, for instance, they're not necessarily caught in all legislation like others are. It's only been a police force in operation for, I think, about 18 to 24 months. So that's what it is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It also allows us to deal with the issues in and around special constables or classes of constables that would be in police forces. For instance, you might have some special constables that are operating in some security authority. It could be a Vancouver police officer, whatever. RCMP have special constables that wouldn't be necessarily in the normal definition. There is no…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It basically does not require regulation today. It actually gives us the regulation-making powers so that if in the future we had any changes made under the Police Act, this legislation would be able to adjust to it under the definition of a police officer. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Just so I'm clear…. I think I got the answer, but I'll just clarify it. So the policing units would, in fact, be including things like the transit police, but it would be police forces, whether it be Abbotsford police, Vancouver police, RCMP, transit police. Is it police forces that the policing units are talking about? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, a police officer is already defined under the Police Act. It's a provincial constable or municipal constable who has the powers of a provincial constable or municipal constable or is a constable referred to in paragraph such-and-such of the act. Basically, what it is, just so I can define it for the member…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The transit police are a police force, but they are actually done by regulation. They were not caught under the Police Act by definition, so that's why we have to have that one change of regulation to make sure they have the authority. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
They're all police officers, and it is a police force. It's a police force that has its own chief. It's integrated with the B.C. Chiefs of Police, that sort of thing. All other police forces, all RCMP detachments — municipal, rural, traffic, all of those guys — and the 11 municipal police forces of British Columbia and some tribal police forces are already caught under the Police Act. This is just to make sure that we're able to deal with that one. In the future, if there are any added, we would be able to add them by regulation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister referenced this a little bit. This is more for me to understand. It talks about, in 8(2)(c): "…one or more classes of constables for the purposes of the definition of 'police officer. '" [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Maybe the minister could explain what the requirement here is. My assumption was that a police officer is a police officer for the purposes of this. A sworn officer is a sworn officer. What is the thinking around one or more constables, and what's the requirement to do that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: At this time, none. All special constables and police in British Columbia are presently caught under the Police Act, so there's no need for regulation. It just gives us the ability in the future to respond to any changes that have been made under the Police Act, and there are none anticipated at this time in our discussions with police services. But it is something to put in the act to make sure that we're able to deal with it in the future if there's a police force that changes or adds or something happens under the Police Act — to be able to react to it for the legislation. That's all that is. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So 8(2)(g) is "prescribing additional considerations for a police officer when making an assessment under section 5 (2) (d)," and 5(2)(d) is "any other prescribed considerations" when doing an assessment of a person at risk. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1650]
Maybe the minister could tell us: is this another one of those catch-alls? We're not sure what it is for now, but we're putting it in place in case we need it later? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah. Basically, at this time there are no additional considerations that have been deemed necessary to determine whether a person is at risk. As this is new legislation, this power allows the government to further refine the application of the legislation once it has been implemented. If we find something operational on the ground that needs to be adjusted, this allows us to deal with that, but there are no regulations being considered at this time for that particular section. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Again, under that particular matter…. I'm going to come back again a bit to the discussion we've had around consultation and around talking to people who are very skilled and have a wealth of experience dealing with folks on the street and people who work for some excellent organizations around the province that do that work day in and day out as outreach workers. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is there a discussion, whether it's through B.C. Housing or through other aspects of the ministry? Is there any consultation contemplated with those organizations around whether they might have advice for the government about what the additional considerations might be — as part of the regulatory process, the process of writing regulation? Is there any contemplation that the minister is going to talk to some of those groups that are particularly skilled or to individuals who have excellent reputations? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I don't want to single people out, but I think of the Judy Graves of the world and people like that who've got a lot of experience. She's only one that I name. I'm sure there are many more who also have excellent insights around what some considerations might be that might support the legislation — not oppose it, but support the legislation. Is there any thought about that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The very fact that this section is there allows for that over time, hon. Member. The reason there are no additional considerations being deemed necessary at this moment is because the legislation hasn't been passed. It hasn't been implemented. As we implement it, we will get feedback from our service providers and our non-profits and law enforcement as to things that they think may…. I'm not saying there will be, but if there are things that need to be added to the definition with regards to making the assessment of somebody that's at risk, that's definitely something that we would do. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 8 approved.
On section 9.
S. Simpson: Just one question here. Could the minister explain? The act comes into force here pretty shortly. There is an awful lot of work, it seems, to be done under regulation to put some meat on the bones to deal with some of these more complex issues. The act comes into force sometime in the next week or so, whenever the L-G comes to do his work and it's finally signed off on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us what that's going to mean in terms of the act coming into force versus a timeline to get the pieces of regulation that need to be in place? There are some that clearly will develop over time and some that may not be required at all. We talked about some of those, where there's a door left open to do things if the government decides it needs to do it around writing regulation. There are some of these regulations that absolutely have to be written to make the act work. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What is the thinking around when that work gets done so that the act actually has enough meat on the bones to be able to be implemented? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: There are a couple of things that the member should know. Most of the stuff that is contained in the act with regards to shelters, the definitions and how the committees work is practice that's already in place today, so it doesn't require a whole bunch of work to get this thing ready. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1655]
There has been a parallel process in place. Through the debate, I've outlined the basic regulations that we'd need to be able to be implemented. I've said right through that these were being developed as the act was getting ready to go. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We are in a position to have the basic regulations necessary to implement the act very quickly, as soon as we have royal assent. Because the rest was basically built around current practice that already exists and all of these things that we do, we're not inventing the new wheel on all the things to do with cold-wet weather committees and those sorts of things, and standards and practices. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We've done all the work, and we've got the draft regs ready to go to be able to implement the act. Then, of course, as it evolves, as we discussed earlier, with thorny issues like input back into what might change — some people at risk or some of the things…. After we see how the implementation works, then we would work with groups on future regulations with regards to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 9 approved.
Title approved.
Hon. R. Coleman: I move the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved on division.
The committee rose at 4:57 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 18 — ASSISTANCE TO SHELTER ACT
Bill 18, Assistance to Shelter Act, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed.
Hon. B. Penner: I call committee stage debate on Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Committee of the Whole House
BIll 14 — HOUSING AND
SOCIAL DEVELOPMENT STATUTES
AMENDMENT ACT, 2009
The House in Committee of the Whole (Section B) on Bill 14; C. Trevena in the chair.
The committee met at 4:58 p.m.
The committee recessed from 4:59 p.m. to 5:07 p.m.
On section 1.
S. Simpson: Bill 14, the Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, for those who might be watching, is a piece of legislation that essentially says that those in the province who may have outstanding warrants and who are on income assistance can essentially lose their income assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Section 15, the consequences. In terms of what the amendments say, it's an amendment to section 15.2(1): "No income assistance, hardship assistance or supplement may be paid to or for a family unit on account of an applicant or recipient for whom a warrant for arrest has been issued…." Then it goes on to specify that a little bit more. It goes on there to talk also about sections on what the minister may provide in terms of assistance in section (2) of that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us what his expectations are around it? It says: "…the minister may provide (a) income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement to or for the family unit on account of the person who is subject to the warrant, or (b) a supplement," etc. Under what circumstances does the minister believe that he would in fact provide assistance to somebody that there was an outstanding warrant for? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Madam Chair, just before we start, to my left now is Michael Turanski. Michael is the executive director of legislation and litigation in the ministry. Of course, Molly Harrington, who was here for the last bill, the ADM for policy and research, is also with us this afternoon for the committee stage of this particular bill. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1710]
This section basically does a number of things. I should mention to the member that this section is actually pretty much identical to the section that existed in a piece of regulation — it wasn't legislation but regulation back in 1997. It was enacted by the previous NDP government, and the reason it lost…. We don't need to get into the Charter discussion, but because it was regulation, not legislation, it was deemed to probably be weaker than it needed to be relative to the Charter issues. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, I think the question was about subsection (2) versus section (1), so I'll go directly to that. It provides discretion. Despite the warrant, the minister may choose to provide assistance, "(a) income assistance, hardship assistance or a supplement…" to the warrant holder. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The discretion is subject to the regulations. The regulations will allow discretion to provide income assistance for persons who are pregnant or who are in final stages of life. The hardship assistance will not normally be provided but will be available in exceptional circumstances, which will be set out by the regulations, as I said above. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Any hardship assistance that is provided will be repayable. A repayable supplement will be available to help the warrant holder with transportation expenses if they choose to return to the issuing jurisdiction and resolve the warrant. Transportation funds will also be available for other members of the family unit where appropriate. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So under this legislation, if you had a circumstance…. You have a couple with two kids. One of the adults has an outstanding warrant that would be affected by Bill 14. That individual is no longer eligible for assistance. Does that mean that the income assistance cheque — because I believe, if I read this correctly, that the intention is not to punish the spouse and the children or not to impact the spouse and the children directly — then reflects one adult and two children, assuming they still have eligibility, and the eligibility for the one adult who's under a warrant is excluded? Would that be what happens? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct. Basically, the assistance will be paid only to an adult who does not have an outstanding warrant and dependent children. No assistance will be provided to the warrant holder. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In the case of a couple with no dependent children, the adult without the warrant will be eligible for the single person rate of assistance. If a couple has a dependent child, the family will be eligible as a single parent if only one parent has an outstanding warrant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Even though no assistance will be provided for the person with the warrant, they will remain as part of the family unit, and we'll, like other members of the family, take their income and assets into account when determining how much assistance the family is eligible for. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The rest of the family unit remains eligible for assistance. It is only the warrant holder. This prohibition only applies to adults in the family unit. Warrants for dependent children it has no impact on. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So I'm clear here. You have two adults and a couple of kids. There's a warrant outstanding for one of the adults. They are now excluded from collecting assistance. The assistance is applied to the other members of the family unit who presumably…. Are you going to end up with the same four people living on less money? Unless they separate, you're still going to end up with the same four people living on less money. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But the legislation also is going to say that what occurs is that that adult who now is receiving no income assistance, no support…. Should they hold any assets, the rest of the family unit gets penalized for their assets, yet they're not, at least in theory, part of that family unit for the purposes of the size of the cheque from income assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Why is the decision made to penalize the rest of the family for this individual, for whatever assets they might hold, when, in fact, you've kind of cut them out of the family unit for the purposes of income assistance? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1715]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, the assets are always calculated when somebody applies for income assistance. As a matter of fact, there's an asset test, and the assets have to be liquidated, before you're actually eligible for assistance, down to a certain level. That doesn't change either way. That's always been the case. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
As far as the family unit is concerned, if there are two parents and one adult has a warrant, they would see their income assistance go down by about $100 a month until the warrant was resolved. There's a reduction with regards to that person's income on social assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We would like to keep the family unit together. We would like them to resolve their warrants. If they resolve their warrants, obviously the income assistance is put back into place. That's basically as the member's described it, and that's exactly how, for the member's information, the previous regulation actually worked. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Minister? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Sorry. I'm advised that on the last piece of my comments, the very last piece, it's not exactly the same as the regulation in that particular instance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I want to address the issue that arises as a result of subsection (4), which refers to an indictable offence. It says: "…includes an offence" which is "deemed under section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act…to be an indictable offence." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
In his speech at second reading on Thursday, October 29, the minister said, and I'm quoting, that the intention…. Well, I'll just perhaps set aside the quote with a little bit of a prologue before I enter the formal quotation from the minister's speech. The minister said that the intention of this legislation was to focus on those who were charged with indictable offences. In his speech, he said, and now I'm going to quote: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Indictable offences are the most serious types of offences, including crimes such as assault, breaking and entering, drug trafficking, murder, assault with a weapon and causing bodily harm, and sexual assault. These are defined in the Criminal Code of Canada. Our intention is to ensure that those charged with indictable offences take personal responsibility and resolve serious charges against them before they can be provided assistance in this province."
Now, the difficulty that…. I pointed this out in remarks I made at second reading, and I don't know whether the minister or his staff have had a chance to review those. If that's not the case, then this question will come de novo rather than something that you've been given notice of. The difficulty is that in the Interpretation Act, as I see it — and I'm reading from section 34(1) — "Where an enactment creates an offence, (a) the offence is deemed to be an indictable offence if the enactment provides that the offender may be prosecuted for the offence by indictment." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, clearly the minister's intention here is to deal with serious offences, and he listed those in his speech. Yet given that definition, would the minister not agree that by this method, given that most offences in the Criminal Code, with relatively few exceptions, are Crown-option offences — in other words, they may be prosecuted by indictment, or they may be prosecuted by summary process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[L. Reid in the chair.]
In the case of something like impaired driving, for example, it would be very rare indeed that it would be prosecuted by indictment, but certainly it's open there in the Criminal Code in that respect. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1720]
Does the minister accept that the result of choosing this language is that virtually every offence in the Criminal Code, be it common assault, impaired driving, wilful damage to property, making threats, theft — all of those fall under the category of offences that may be prosecuted by indictment and therefore, given that choice of the section, are indictable offences and will lead to the consequences that the minister seeks for those charged with indictable offences? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: That's correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Given, then, that the minister concedes that the effect of the legislation will be to bring this mechanism into place for virtually every criminal offence, can the minister explain his comments at second reading where he spoke of focusing on the most serious types of offences? Clearly, there is a gap between what the minister said at second reading and what he's now conceded — that this is very sweeping. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, I disagree with the member opposite. There are summary conviction offences that will proceed under the Criminal Code by summary conviction only. There are summary conviction offences. But basically, when this was drafted, we asked our folks: "Is there any other way to do this with regards to indictable offences?" We can't rewrite the Criminal Code, so offences that can be proceeded by indictment are considered to be indictable offences. If the warrant is issued on that basis for someone, then the act will apply. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, one way of doing it, if I might suggest, would be to specifically enumerate the offences that one seeks this prohibition of receiving social assistance benefits for. For example, one could enumerate in more or less the manner that the minister did in his own speech at second reading. One could enumerate breaking and entering, drug trafficking, murder, assault with a weapon, and sexual assault, and enumerate those as the serious offences that the minister is concerned with. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The manner that's been chosen here means that someone who's charged with shoplifting is technically, under this definition, charged with an indictable offence and subject to the prohibition. Is that the intention of the minister? Did the minister really intend that someone who is charged with shoplifting would be prohibited from receiving welfare unless they dealt with a warrant outstanding for that charge? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We're not going to enumerate the offences. The actual section is, ironically, the same section as was the regulation that was in place in 1997 under the previous NDP government, which was actually even more punitive in flexibility than this particular piece of legislation is because it didn't give any flexibility whatsoever and actually went after people even under the ages that we're talking about. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Our advice was that this was how the legislation had to be drafted — basically, the section that includes an indictable offence and deemed under section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act. Ironically, in 1997 "indictable offence" includes an offence that is deemed under section 34(1)(a) of the Interpretation Act of Canada. It was exactly the same thing as the regulation that the former government had. They ran that for three or four years before they had a challenge under the Charter. One of the things that was determined was that this should have been in legislation versus regulation because regulation was stronger with regards to this. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The member might want to go back and debate with his own party — mind you, they didn't take it to legislation but debated in the House — and find out what the genesis was 12 years ago, when in actual fact, you had exactly the same provision in a piece of legislation with regards to outstanding warrants for people on social assistance in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, I know the minister is always anxious to settle old scores from the 1990s, but we're dealing with legislation here in 2009. This minister is in charge, and this minister has the opportunity to change the legislation to accord with what he said in this very House. It's what he said in this very House. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Let me quote the minister again from his speech at second reading. "Indictable offences are the most serious types of offences including crimes such as assault, breaking and entering, drug trafficking, murder, assault with a weapon causing bodily harm and sexual assault." That's what the minister said. That's the piece of legislation that we're debating now. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1725]
We're not in 1997 now. We're in 2009. The minister is the minister, and he's the one who's responsible for this piece of legislation. So to refer back to 12 years ago is not, in my view, a response really worthy of the designation "response" at all. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
B. Ralston: Well, Madam Chair, when one is in pursuit of big game, one doesn't stop for rabbit droppings that we're hearing from the other side. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Deputy Speaker: The member for Surrey-Whalley will engage in language that's parliamentary. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Just attempting to deal with some of the periodic eruptions from the opposite side. Perhaps if I stop, they'll stop for a moment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Now, if I might proceed. Clearly what the minister said….That was his intention. That was his stated intention. That was the principle that he set out in second reading. The minister has now conceded that the principle that he spoke of in this very House, in his own speech at second reading, setting before the public the purpose of this piece of legislation, is at variance with the actual effect of the bill — that with this bill, the effect will be to catch those charged with what I think anyone familiar with the criminal justice system…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Every criminal offence is, of course, a breach of the Queen's peace and serious in that respect, but what are I think that anyone familiar with the system would regard as minor criminal offences, such as shoplifting or threatening or wilful damage, mischief, all the range of those kind of offences…. I'm sure that perhaps we can…. I'll ask his staff to make sure, because he did speak of some summary conviction offences that…. The minister has now set forth a principle that casts a very, very wide net. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Can the minister explain, without resorting back to his 1997 tirade, why he would not consider simply enumerating those offences that he spoke of in his own speech at second reading and thereby improve the bill to conform with the principles that he himself set out in that speech? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: I actually heard my own words back to me, and he said, "Such as," and if I had enumerated every offence that was an indictable offence in my remarks, I would have probably been there for a few hours. That doesn't mean they're all included; it doesn't mean those are the only ones included. The member can decide to interpret that whatever way he wants. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
This is the section. This section is basically that an "indictable offence" includes an offence that is deemed under section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act of Canada to be an indictable offence. This provision is to ensure that individuals with outstanding warrants take personal responsibility and resolve the serious charges against them before being provided with assistance in this province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The proposed provision provides a general prohibition against payment of income assistance, hardship assistance or supplement to an individual in circumstances where an unexecuted arrest warrant has been issued against them. It is important that the proposed provision does not prohibit the payment of assistance to the rest of the family unit if the other adult members do not have outstanding warrants and, following the general provision of the act, grants the minister the discretion to provide income assistance and hardship assistance or a supplement set forth in regulation for those at the end of life or pregnant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Perhaps the minister would consider an alternate suggestion. Maybe he could seek confirmation from his staff that this might work. Rather than specifically enumerating all of the indictable offences — because he's objecting to that — use this clause and enumerate exceptions of those summary conviction offences. There's a list, I would say, of the most frequently charged criminal offences. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Theft of an item with a value not in excess of $5,000 would probably be one of the most common. Threatening is another one. Mischief, wilful damage are other ones. Set out a list of exceptions of offences which are commonly prosecuted by summary procedure and thereby achieve the objectives that he set for himself in his speech at second reading. Would the minister consider proceeding in that manner? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1730]
Hon. R. Coleman: I think I've explained it to the member, and the answer is no. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Will the minister then confirm that section 334 of the Criminal Code, theft, can be prosecuted by either summary conviction or by indictment, and therefore falls within section 34(1)(a), an offence that may be prosecuted by indictment? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Subsection (4) provides that the phrase "indictable offence" includes an offence that is deemed under section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act of Canada to be an indictable offence. The member may want to get into the individual sections of the Criminal Code, but if they fall under that section, 34(1), of the Interpretation Act as an indictable offence, they are included. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister did refer to summary conviction offences. So I'm wondering what summary conviction offences he had in mind that would be excluded. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I didn't want, and I'm sure the minister didn't want, to leave a misleading impression, a false impression, about which offences would fall into this category. I know that the minister is being advised by people with some legal training there. Section 334 of the Criminal Code of Canada: [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
"Except where otherwise provided by law, everyone who commits theft (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years where the property stolen is a testamentary instrument or the value of what is stolen exceeds $5,000; or (b) is guilty (i) of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, or (ii) of an offence punishable on summary conviction where the value of what is stolen does not exceed $5,000."
So does the minister agree that shoplifting offences will, by the operation of this legislation, be considered indictable offences no matter whether one is stealing a chocolate bar from the corner store or a loaf of bread from the supermarket? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Subsection (4), as I stated, provides that the phrase "indictable offence" includes an offence that is deemed under section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act of Canada to be an indictable offence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: I see that the minister is determined not to answer and simply recites the section. That's really unfortunate, given the consequences that this legislation may have in the public realm. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm surprised that he's not prepared to defend what he said at second reading, because his intention, his stated intention at second reading — and I quoted from his speech on Thursday, October 29 — was that this would focus on what he called, and these are his words, serious offences. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
He gave a list, which I agree with. Just for the record, I think that is quite a reasonable approach, to list those as serious offences. If the intention is to focus on serious offences, I agree with his choice of representative offences that most people — I think virtually all people — would deem as serious. So I'm disappointed that the minister will not respond beyond simply reciting the section that's before…. That really doesn't meet, in my view — and, I'm sure, in the view of many members of the public…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I'm sure members of the public will have an opportunity, if they choose to, to make that judgment themselves about this debate. It doesn't really even amount to a debate where the minister simply recites the section itself. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But just to continue, just so that we're clear, section 430 of the Criminal Code, subsection 430(4) reads as follows:"Everyone who commits mischief in relation to property, other than property described in subsection (3), (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years; or (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So someone who is charged with committing what I think most people would consider a minor criminal offence, such as what might be called vandalism, damage to property…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1735]
That would be deemed an indictable offence under the operation of this section. Does the minister agree with that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Shall section 1 pass? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Member for Surrey-Whalley. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister didn't provide a response — just for the record. Could I go on to ask another question if the minister is not going to answer? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: The member for Surrey-Whalley has been recognized. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Thank you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Frankly, I'm a bit surprised, a bit taken aback that the minister would be so weak in his defence of this legislation that he wouldn't even answer the question. This is a serious matter. This has a potential impact on a lot of people out there. This is a matter of public debate and concern, and for a minister simply to refuse to enter into any debate in this chamber on a piece of legislation that he is steering through the Legislature is, I would say, rare if not unprecedented in my brief experience in these precincts. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
B. Ralston: Well, members opposite seem obsessed with the past and unwilling to face the present, let alone the future. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So this particular piece of legislation…. It's very clear by the absence of any response that the minister has utterly conceded the points that I've made, and that this legislation…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Interjections.
B. Ralston: Well, he can stand up and answer if he wants to. If the members opposite want to make their comments on the record, I'm sure they know that they have to stand in their place and actually address the bill rather than just simply grunt and bellow when the fancy strikes them. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's very clear that the minister has conceded the point that's been made. I think it's important that the public realize that — that the scope of this legislation is not as it was set out in the minister's speech at second reading. It applies to virtually every criminal offence. The number of criminal offences that are purely summary conviction offences are relatively few in the Criminal Code, and it applies to most of the common criminal offences. So it's much more sweeping than the minister set out at second reading. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
I think it's unfortunate that the minister has chosen not to defend that policy, that legislative result. I think it's unfortunate that he has chosen not to accept any suggestions from the opposition as to how the bill might be amended in order to conform with his speech at second reading. Clearly, at second reading he spoke of serious offences, and certainly the impression that was left was that that was what the bill would focus on. That's clearly not the impression…. That's not the result, as he has now conceded. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
With those comments, I'll leave that particular topic. I want to turn to another question on this section. The minister did say that applicants would be requested to submit to a criminal background check. I'm reading from his speech on Thursday, October 29: "Failing to disclose the existence of an outstanding warrant when required to do so may be considered welfare fraud and will be treated accordingly." [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So could the minister explain how he envisages that would work in a practical sense in the application process at the income assistance office? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1740]
Hon. R. Coleman: In response to the last closing comments by the member, it's not my fault that the NDP's love affair with the criminal continues, hon. Member. That's the way you feel. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
That you shouldn't have somebody with an indictable offence under an act that is actually declared…. It is very clear under section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act that somebody should be ineligible. You actually had it in regulation when you were in government in the 1990s. That's fine. We could sit here all afternoon and debate which section and which particular section of the Criminal Code and what have you. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We took our legal advice, our legal drafting advice, and this is the way it had to be done in the opinion of the people that drafted the legislation. I actually take their expertise way before I'll take your expertise with regards to this legislation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The fact of the matter, Member, is if you come in and make an application for welfare…. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The Chair: Minister, through the Chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Thank you, Madam Chair. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If you make an application for welfare in British Columbia, and you do not disclose the information required on the application, that's a fraud. It would be considered breaching the application process. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So if a person does not admit that they have an outstanding warrant, and they say, "I am entitled to receive assistance," we at that point, if we find out that you've lied to us in the application, can actually pursue repayment on any overpayments that may occur. Sanctions such as periods of ineligibility or rate reductions are also available when a recipient of assistance fails to provide accurate information to the ministry about their circumstances. This would include failing to report an outstanding warrant when required to do so by the ministry. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Failing to disclose the existence of an outstanding warrant when required to do so may be considered welfare fraud and would be treated accordingly. That's no different than any other information you would provide on that application, hon. Member, and it would continue to be so. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Well, it is interesting and an example of the inconsistent, to put it mildly, reasoning of the minister when he, on the one hand, cites the precedent from the 1990s, which he marshals in support of his argument, which he claims is the same as the provision that's before us, yet makes some scurrilous and false comments about standing up and questioning the bill — a supposed affinity with the criminal element. I think that's really shocking, disgraceful behaviour by a minister of the Crown, and it should be condemned — and I'm sure will be condemned — by the public. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
But with those brief opening comments, I do want to return to a question. Does the minister anticipate that there will be a facility or an ability to check in the welfare office itself for the existence of a warrant, or will that be something that will be subject to subsequent or later verification after the application is processed? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1745]
Hon. R. Coleman: First of all, our offices will not be conducting any direct CPIC checks or doing anything directly. Any checks that would be done would be done through the Public Safety and Solicitor General and administered through police services, however that protocol is set up. We're in discussions with the Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner on how that can be done. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Each person that will come in and apply for social assistance will verify in a question that will be on the application whether they have an outstanding warrant or not. They will also sign a consent form for a criminal record check. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
None of the information with regards to a criminal record check or what a warrant would be outstanding for would be shared with our staff to protect the privacy of the people that will be issuing. We will not be doing a criminal record check on every person that applies for social assistance. This will be a self-exclusion thing, where they will advise us. Or if we are informed by law enforcement through to, basically, our enforcement branch with regards to someone being on social assistance and also having an outstanding warrant, it could also be triggered in that way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Has the minister considered, in drafting this legislation, the circumstances where, on occasion, warrants will be issued in what's called the first instance? In other words, the person may not be aware of the warrant. I'm sure the Solicitor General or others, perhaps even the minister himself in his previous life, could confirm or be familiar with circumstances where warrants are sought by investigating officers, and the subject of the investigation may not be aware that a warrant has been issued. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is it contemplated that those circumstances may arise, and how is it contemplated that that be resolved? Obviously, it does raise a question of credibility in the application. If the person says, "I didn't know about the warrant," it may literally and actually be true in some cases. How is it proposed that that would be resolved? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Obviously, if a person isn't aware of that, it's not fraud, and they're not lying to us on their application. So a number of the provisions don't apply. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: So just for clarity, then: is the minister confirming that that's actually been contemplated and is included in the at least tentative operational rollout, should this legislation pass? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Yeah, that's correct, and if a person has a doubt, they can actually ask us, as well, to check and see if they have an outstanding warrant when they apply, and we will do that for them as well. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: Is it contemplated that running a check for the existence of outstanding warrants will become a precondition for an application or a consent to that as a precondition to an application rather than simply processing the application based on the representations made by the person who is completing the application? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1750]
Hon. R. Coleman: The short answer is no. They do sign a consent for a criminal record check. They make their application, and they can check the box to say if they have an outstanding warrant or not. It doesn't mean that we're going to go check every single person that comes in and applies for social assistance at that point. They do give us the right to do that in case we get a complaint, and we're able to go look at it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Each on their annual review, if they have another application period, would check the box again. If they checked it differently at that time, then we would deal with it. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We basically have the ability for the verification — to do this. The overall objective of the verification process is to maintain the integrity of the income assistance program. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We're going to develop policy guidelines to specify risk factors or circumstances that may trigger the review of an individual's file, including whether they have an outstanding warrant. For instance, the ministry may verify a file if information is received from a law enforcement agency or from the public indicating that an individual may have an outstanding warrant. But as they come in to apply, we will accept what they put on their application at face value. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
B. Ralston: The minister mentioned earlier, in one of his previous answers, protocols involving the Solicitor General and the Information and Privacy Commissioner. Could he elaborate on those? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We're entering into a letter of understanding with the Public Safety and Solicitor General for criminal record checks. The Information and Privacy Commissioner was going to do a review of our application process as part of that process and do a review of the letter of understanding for the protection of information and privacy, as we put this together with the commissioner. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I just have a couple of questions here. Just for clarification. Did the minister tell us if every current or existing recipient of income assistance will be required to answer the question about a warrant and will be required to authorize a criminal record check? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: There are two questions in there, I think. I'll try and answer them both. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Basically, when a person applies, they will be asked to sign the consent form for a criminal record check. We're not going to all of our existing clients and saying: "You now need to sign this form." Only when they apply or when they're doing an annual review would they be asked to do that. At the same time, that's the only time they would see the change in application. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
So if somebody's on social assistance today and their annual review was in March, the question that would now exist on the application after the legislation is in place is: "Do you have an outstanding warrant?" At that point in time, if it's an annual review, they would also be asked for the consent form for the criminal record check. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1755]
At the same time — only a bit different on that — our employable clients, who have to basically tell us that they're still eligible for social assistance monthly, will be asked, as their application changes, to check the box with regards to the warrant each time they come in to confirm that they're still eligible. But the criminal record check request would still only be applicable at application or annual review. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: That will hold true for all members of a family unit who are presumably age of majority? All members of a family unit will have to approve both the criminal record check — or authorize the criminal record check — plus answer the question in regard to a warrant? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Only the adults in the family unit that are applicants saying that they want social assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: This just reflects back — to have an understanding, I'm selecting an example here, because sometimes examples are a good thing — to the exchange between the minister and the member for Surrey-Whalley in regard to what's an indictable offence. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister confirm for me, then, that if we had a circumstance…? We have a single mom from Calgary who is charged with shoplifting in Calgary in the supermarket, leaves Calgary with her kids, comes to Vancouver and does not respond to the warrant that is issued for the charge. She, then, is not eligible under the terms of this to collect income assistance in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: As long as it is an indictable offence — that includes an offence that is deemed under section 34(1) of the Interpretation Act of Canada to be an indictable offence — the member is correct. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What happens is the family unit…. The individual in this particular case…. I'll use the example of the single mom with one child, because that's germane to the member's question. If they had an outstanding warrant, the maximum they would receive would be $845.58. If they didn't have an outstanding warrant, they would receive $945.58. So there would be a reduction of $100 a month for the person of the family unit that had the outstanding until such time as they resolved the warrant. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: So based on that, as the minister says…. We know, based on the exchange between the minister and the member from Surrey-Whalley, that that single mom out of Calgary who shoplifted out of the Safeway would, in fact, be facing an indictable offence based on that warrant, whether it was ever convicted or proceeded in that way. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Could the minister tell us: has the government done any assessment of what the impact of this legislation will be on the expense of paying for income assistance in British Columbia and the budget for income assistance in British Columbia? Has there been any assessment of that? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: We anticipate this is going to be cost-neutral. This is not about the saving of money and reducing the number of people on assistance in B.C. This is about ensuring that those who have outstanding warrants take personal responsibility and resolve the serious charges against them before they're provided assistance in the province. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1800]
This is about us being accountable to taxpayers and being committed to providing assistance to people in most need and not tolerating the abuse of the system. This is fulfilling, as the member obviously knows, a Speech from the Throne commitment that we made. In addition to that, because we're also offering people the opportunity to return to their jurisdiction to resolve the issues of the warrant if they want and pay for those transportation costs, we'll also deal with the family unit with regards to that. We don't see this as either a saving or an income issue. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Could the minister tell us: have there been any interprovincial discussions on this or other jurisdictions pursuing this legislation? Has the government of British Columbia had any discussions about reciprocal agreements on this that would deal with these matters? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: No, this is provincial legislation for British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: The minister talks about that the government would be prepared to pay some expenses — I guess, transportation costs. I'm not sure what other expenses the government would be prepared to pay for that single mom from Calgary to be able to go back and address this matter in Calgary should she have that outstanding warrant here. The government has refused her income assistance based on the outstanding warrant. The offer presumably has been made to assist her to go back and resolve this matter in the jurisdiction where it occurred. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What are we talking about when we talk about assistance? Are we talking about paying a return airfare or train ticket or bus ticket? Are we talking about a hotel bill? What is the government prepared to pay to resolve that matter? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: As was the previous regulation that existed in B.C., it will be the least expensive and reasonable method of transportation. That would be done on a case-by-case basis. We'll have some parameters established within regulation with regards to that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
It's also possible for someone…. If they want to deal with the warrant, they can deal with it in British Columbia by choosing, if they don't feel they want to contest the particular charge that's outstanding against them, to have it transferred to British Columbia and deal with it here — and not requiring transportation in cleaning it up. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Those things are something that each individual decision will have to make, but we're just making sure that the provision is there for that flexibility within the act. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: Just to pursue this a little further. I understand the minister saying that it would be the least expensive mode of travel, whether that's the Greyhound or whatever it is to get to the jurisdiction outside of province, and assuming that the person may, for any number of reasons, choose to resolve that issue in the jurisdiction where the charge is outstanding and the warrant was issued. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Would that least expensive method…? This may not be something that gets done in a day. It may take a few days in order to accomplish that and resolve that matter so that they could come back to British Columbia and have that matter cleared up to be able to make a reapplication or deal with the issues under the effect of Bill 14 or the act. Would the government also be paying, in that least costly manner, for accommodation for them while they're there, if it takes them a day or two to resolve this matter in the courts? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The supplement may be provided under this section only to assist with the cost of the least expensive and appropriate mode of transportation and the least expensive, appropriate living costs for the individual. These are repayable expenses for the individual. They are actually repayable. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1805]
B. Ralston: The minister made reference to dealing with an outstanding warrant from another jurisdiction in this jurisdiction, and that is usually done by agreeing to enter a guilty plea. Ordinarily, the matter of transferring a file from, say, Calgary in Alberta to, say, Vancouver might take anywhere from six to eight weeks. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Given that the person has acknowledged the existence of the warrant and has expressed a desire to plead guilty in Vancouver without the necessity of travelling to Calgary, can the minister advise what would be the financial status in terms of income assistance for that person during that interval of six to eight weeks? In some cases it can be longer, as I'm sure the Solicitor General can confirm or the minister may recall in his previous occupation. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: The social assistance would be reduced accordingly, as I outlined with the example I gave the member earlier. The family unit would still receive their social assistance, but there might be a reduction of $100 a month, up to maybe $150, depending on the family makeup. In those circumstances we would do hardship assistance to top it up, but that hardship assistance, ultimately, is repayable. But if they needed it, we would provide hardship assistance while they're waiting to deal with what the member described. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: I just want to pursue this a little further and in the instance particularly. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
When we talk about families and that, we can certainly see where, in the case again of the Calgary single mom shoplifting, it's $100 or so. In the case of a single person, where they are a single person who has that outstanding warrant, who, as my colleague from Surrey-Whalley indicated, is prepared to plead it out, stay in British Columbia, transfer the file and deal with it, they are going to lose their whole welfare cheque, presumably. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Is it the expectation, then, of the minister that if that individual loses their cheque for a month and a half, two months — whatever it takes for the administration to process the paper, for them to be able to go to court in British Columbia and deal with the matter from another jurisdiction — that they either would receive no support, or all of the support they received would then be repayable? They would be in a situation already receiving, what I'm sure the minister would agree, is a nominal amount of money as a single person — employable or disabled. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
We know in the second section of this it could very well be disabled. So a person who has a disability, a single person with a disability, who doesn't have other income options, loses their income for that couple of months…. They would then be expected to repay that even if they were going through the process of resolving the matter as directed by the ministry? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Basically, when a person is disentitled, they're disentitled until they deal with the outstanding warrant. A wanted person can attend at a police station for arrest and release, waive the charge to B.C. for a guilty plea or return to the original jurisdiction. The disentitlement remains in effect until the warrant is withdrawn from CPIC, but they can have hardship. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
At this stage, though, the assistance can be reinstated when a person confirms they have taken steps to deal with the warrant by producing a signed recognizance, a request for waiver of charges or a bail document. At that point in time we know they're in the process of doing it, and we can reinstate their social assistance. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: In fact, then, the minister is saying that I have that outstanding warrant. I'm a single person on a disability. I'm collecting my welfare cheque here. I have that outstanding warrant. I acknowledge that, or it becomes an issue. I say I want to deal with this so that it doesn't affect my income assistance or my disability cheque. I do everything that the ministry asks me to do to resolve it in British Columbia, in the courts in British Columbia. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
[1810]
Then is the minister saying that there's a decision to be made that I may be fully reinstated with my disability cheque? Who makes the decision that I will get that reinstituted versus a hardship that I have to pay back? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Just like with any other application, the person in charge of the office can make that decision. That's where they'll be delegated to by regulation. The assistance can be issued to a person that confirms they've taken those steps that I've outlined, which are a signed recognizance, a request for waiver of charges or a bail document. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Prior to the implementation of anything in the office, we will be giving a two-month notice period to everybody that applies for social assistance and is on social assistance that this is in effect. It basically is a clemency period in which they can go clean this stuff up without its having any effect on their applications. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
S. Simpson: What the minister is saying here is that there is a two-month clemency, grace period or whatever you want to call it, for people to address these matters without its having any impact on their assistance, however that assistance is applied. Again going back to the previous question, the minister has said that the office supervisor or whoever is running that office, the IA office, has the ability to make that decision. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
What criteria do they use, other than the fact that I have acknowledged I have an outstanding warrant, that I have signed and submitted to the courts whatever documents I'm required to submit to transfer the case to British Columbia and — not being a lawyer, but based on the comments of my colleague from Surrey-Whalley — that I'm prepared to expedite this thing here with a guilty plea or whatever that requirement is to expedite that matter here? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
If I've signed all those documents, is that what it takes for the criteria? Does that supervisor in the office have some other discretion that they can use, or does that get the job done and I get my cheque back? [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Hon. R. Coleman: Our intention, as we bring the regulation into place, is to do what you described: when you've done this and you have a request for waiver of charges, a bail document or a signed recognizance, then you would be reinstated. We will have that defined out for our offices to understand that. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Sections 1 to 3 inclusive approved.
Title approved.
Hon. R. Coleman: I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete without amendment. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
Motion approved on division.
The committee rose at 6:14 p.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
[1815]
Report and
Third Reading of Bills
Bill 14 — housing and
social development statutes
amendment act, 2009
Bill 14, Housing and Social Development Statutes Amendment Act, 2009, reported complete without amendment, read a third time and passed on division.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. B. Penner moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 tomorrow afternoon. [DRAFT TRANSCRIPT ONLY]
The House adjourned at 6:17 p.m.
[ Return to: Legislative Assembly Home Page ]
Hansard Services
publishes transcripts both in print and on the Internet.
Chamber debates are broadcast on television and webcast on the Internet.
Question Period podcasts are available on the Internet.
TV channel guide • Broadcast schedule
Copyright (c) 2009: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada