Third Session, 42nd Parliament

(2022) OFFICIAL REPORT

OF DEBATES

(HANSARD)

Thursday, October 20, 2022

Afternoon Sitting

Issue No. 234

ISSN 1499-2175

The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.

The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.

CONTENTS

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

Tributes

Marion Cumming

Hon. M. Rankin

David Flaherty

Hon. M. Rankin

Orders of the Day

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 35 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. S. Robinson

P. Milobar

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 35 — Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022

Committee of the Whole House

Bill 31 — B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act

Hon. N. Cullen

D. Ashton

Report and Third Reading of Bills

Bill 31 — B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act

Second Reading of Bills

Bill 34 — Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Amendment Act, 2022

Hon. A. Dix

M. de Jong

Hon. S. Malcolmson

B. Anderson

B. D’Eith

A. Singh

M. Dykeman

N. Sharma

Hon. A. Dix

THURSDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2022

The House met at 1:02 p.m.

[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]

Routine Business

Introductions by Members

P. Milobar: It’s my pleasure…. I think all political parties are at their best

when they foster and develop young members to try to take the torch, be the

next generation to step forward, bring forward their ideas and bring forward

their ideals. Certainly, that’s something that the B.C. Liberals cherish

greatly. In my understanding, we have one such individual in the precinct

today.

Would the House please make welcome in the precinct Anjali

Appadurai.

Tributes

MARION CUMMING

Hon. M. Rankin: I have the honour to make tributes to two remarkable British

Columbians today. First, I have the honour of rising and paying tribute

to a wonderful advocate and a dear friend, Marion Cumming. Her

dedication to reconciliation and to environmentalism was profound and

continues to live on. Marion would have been 86 today.

She leaves behind a remarkable legacy that both inspired me on our

many occasions to be together and laid the foundation for the next

generation of advocates. Marion was steadfast in her commitment to

social justice. While attending the University of the Americas, Marion

experienced her political awakening as she learned of the effects of

oppression and inequality that racialized communities faced.

In 1992, Marion moved to Oak Bay, where daily advocacy raised

issues relating to important environmental and Indigenous causes, such

as helping to develop the Sea to Sea Greenbelt Society and to secure

watershed lands for protection, and holding garden, writing and arts

events for Indigenous peoples and others to connect. Her Oak Bay home

was a testament to her commitment, reflected in her enormous library,

full of books on Indigenous rights, on art and on culture. But perhaps

Marion’s most selfless act saw her give private land to Indigenous

peoples.

[1:05 p.m.]

This started with the donation of her acreage in New Brunswick,

following the Oka crisis of 1990, and continues today with her most

remarkably generous gift and act of love. She donated her South Oak Bay

home to the Victoria Native Friendship Centre on her passing.

I think my first conversation with Marion was at the NDP campaign

office, when I was first seeking office and she was working as a

volunteer. It was a powerful first meeting. As she spoke about the

injustices facing First Nations, I was drawn to her measured words and

her kind demeanour and was struck by her indefatigable

energy.

I remember asking myself: where does that unyielding commitment

and desire for a better world come from? I concluded it came from her

firm moral compass.

Marion had a wonderful sparkle in her eye at all times. She drew

everyone to her. She was a wise Elder and leader for us all, and she

made this world a better place.

Marion, I will miss you dearly.

DAVID FLAHERTY

Hon. M. Rankin: Another great honour I have today is one tinged with the deepest

sadness, because I have to acknowledge the passing of another

extraordinary individual and dear friend, Dr. David Flaherty, who passed

away this week, far too soon.

David Flaherty will be known to many in this House. He was

appointed as an officer of the Legislature in 1993 to serve as British

Columbia’s first Information and Privacy Commissioner. With his

characteristic drive and great intelligence, David established the

Office of the Information and Privacy Commissioner from scratch. And

when I say “from scratch,” he started off with a telephone in a room in

the basement of this building.

In his six-year term as commissioner, David created a

sophisticated regulatory body. He personally issued over 300

freedom-of-information appeal decisions, and with his colleagues in the

office, he published dozens of privacy investigation reports and

numerous support resources for citizens and public bodies

alike.

Thanks to his tireless efforts, David built an internationally

respected organization, and he was a regulator admired for his

innovative work and effectiveness.

Before becoming commissioner, David had an extraordinary career as

a highly respected academic and thought leader in privacy in Canadian

legal history. He was born in Campbellton, New Brunswick, in 1940. He

was raised in Montreal. He graduated from McGill with the gold medal in

history. He went on to receive a PhD from Columbia and taught at

Princeton University and the University of Virginia before returning

home in the early 1970s to what is now Western University, where he held

appointments in both history and law.

During his distinguished academic career, David held appointments

at Harvard, at Oxford, at Stanford and at Georgetown universities, and

he was a Woodrow Wilson Fellow in Washington, D.C., at the time of his

appointment as commissioner.

After moving to Victoria, David quickly immersed himself in our

community. He was a tireless and extremely generous financial supporter

of the performing and visual arts. He volunteered literally thousands of

hours, leading fundraising initiatives for so many charitable causes.

David was also, for decades, a very generous donor to many local

community organizations, such as the United Way and the Garth Homer

Society.

David’s contributions to this province were recognized in 2015

with the Royal Roads University Chancellor’s Community Recognition Award

and, in 2017, with an honorary doctor of laws at the University of

Victoria.

As fitting as these honours were, for the many people who were

fortunate to count David as a friend, mentor or confidant, we remember

him fondly and with gratitude for who he was. He was a fiercely

intelligent, learned, wise and vibrant person but, above all, a

thoughtful, kind and loving person. For me, he was not only a mentor but

the big brother I never had.

We will sorely miss David Flaherty — father, grandfather, husband,

brother, friend, mentor and colleague. I’m sure that all hon. members

will join me in expressing our deepest condolences to David’s beloved

spouse, Karen Jensen, his daughter-in-law, Christine Sullivan, and

grandson, Caleb, who are present with us today, and to his sons Sean,

Michael and Robert, to his grandchildren, to his brothers, to his

sisters and to his many friends and colleagues both here and around the

world.

[1:10 p.m.]

Orders of the Day

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

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 35 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 35;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:12 p.m.

On clause 1.

Hon. S. Robinson: The bill before us is about making a temporary increase to the

B.C. family benefit, as well as changing the name for what was the child

opportunity benefit.

I have two staff here helping me navigate through this committee

stage. I have Steve Hawkshaw over here and Matt Krzepkowski just right

behind me.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

P. Milobar: It’s a pretty straightforward bill. So I’ll just ask a couple of

questions of the minister, just more so the public gets a clear sense of

what is in store for them with this.

This will take effect for January, February and March of this

year. Obviously, that’s the end of the fiscal year, at the end of

March.

Can the minister confirm that there’s no application needed, that

this is just strictly an increase of up to $58.33 a month for people

that already qualify and that it will just be a seamless increase, if

they qualify, based on their incomes currently?

Hon. S. Robinson: Because we know that families are struggling, we wanted to keep

this as simple as possible. The member is correct. There’s no additional

requirement on behalf of families. They will receive this

automatically.

P. Milobar: My understanding is that there has been no change to the income

thresholds that would qualify you, but because of the increase to the

overall calculation, there may be some people that currently weren’t

qualifying that may see just a few dollars added to the payment that

they maybe currently don’t qualify for. Is that accurate, or is it that

if you haven’t qualified for a dollar at this point, you don’t qualify

for a dollar moving forward?

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

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

one question.

Hon. S. Robinson: It was the first one. I was nodding as he was speaking, so that’s

where my head went. So some additional folks may qualify.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

P. Milobar: Just to be clear, the payment will commence or start to be in

motion as soon as there’s royal assent on this bill, and the actual

naming of it won’t change, though, till January 1, when that payment

gets sent out. Correct?

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

Clause 3 approved.

Title approved.

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

amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 1:15 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 35 — INCOME TAX

AMENDMENT ACT,

Bill 35, Income Tax Amendment Act, 2022, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

Corporation Act.

Committee of the Whole House

BILL 31 — B.C. PAVILION

CORPORATION ACT

The House in Committee of the Whole (Section

B) on Bill 31;

J. Tegart in the chair.

The committee met at 1:18 p.m.

The Chair: The committee will take a short recess while we wait for the

minister and staff.

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

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

The Chair: We are dealing with Bill 31, the B.C. Pavilion Corporation

Act. Would the minister like to introduce his staff?

Hon. N. Cullen: Thank you very much. Because of this incredibly efficient

Legislature that we have, we have staff who are on their way from the

ministry’s offices. I’m joined by James McNish, who works in our office,

and there will be some others who will be making their way here, and

maybe even some on an earpiece to help us along if there are very

specific questions with regards to Bill 31.

On clause 1.

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

Minister, in your first reading of the bill, you had stated that

the purpose of this bill is to streamline the legislation by eliminating

redundant statutes related to the British Columbia Enterprise Corp., an

entity which has not carried out business for over 30 years. I would

just ask: why has this legislation been so long in coming to be tabled

over this period of time that the entity has not been

functional?

Hon. N. Cullen: Nice to see my friend as well. I’m so glad that the first question

he asked is one that I can’t fully answer. The Enterprise Corp. has not

conducted business in three decades. It might be a question of our

government and previous governments and previous governments before that

as to why it continued on in this form, but it has. It didn’t prevent,

from my knowledge, PavCo from doing any of its essential business on

behalf of British Columbians in terms of the two sites that remain

active after Expo 86. Yet this is a bit of legislative

housekeeping.

The Enterprise Corp. is somewhat…. I don’t know about misnamed,

but just not active. All the assets and liabilities, as we talked about

at second reading, are transferring over to the proper way and the

authorities. We will have a Pavilions Act in its place for, clearly, the

two buildings that are left, and it will be able to operate in the way

that it’s meant to.

But as to why it took this long, I suppose it could be any one of

a number of reasons. I won’t speculate too far — but a few decades

before my time and before our time here together.

[1:30 p.m.]

D. Ashton: So may I ask…. You’re bringing it forward now just to clean it up.

Is that correct? How was that brought forward to your attention for this

to transpire?

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

us.

It was brought to my attention, not that long ago, as a potential

and necessary thing to do. We are, of course, quite busy at Municipal

Affairs, as many of our colleagues were attending UBCM and some other

things. We just recently had, of course, municipal elections, and those

— for the large part, I think — went well. We might have a couple

recounts and a few tosses of the coin. So we’re quite preoccupied with

the many things that we are engaged with on all those fronts.

But this was moving through the legislative calendar. It was

something we wanted to bring forward. I’m quite pleased, by the way. It

is moving expeditiously through the Legislature because, I think — it’s

my opinion, and I think it’s shared by many other members — there’s not

a lot of contention within this bill. It is simply that housekeeping

procedure that we needed to do.

D. Ashton: Staff in the room, now.

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

always greatly appreciated.

I find myself, literally, in the same boat as the minister,

because I’ve gone back to previous ministers of Municipal Affairs and

asked about this and there’s a lot of head-scratching that was going on

— going: “God, I think I remember, but I’m not positive.” What was the

original purpose of the British Columbia Enterprise Corp.?

Hon. N. Cullen: Just to update our support here. I’m joined by Lynn Tang, who’s

from Municipal Affairs — has probably forgotten more about this than

I’ll ever know — and will be assisting us this afternoon in some of the

conversations back-and-forth.

With respect to the origins of this…. Again, this harkens back to

Expo 86 in British Columbia and Vancouver hosting the world. Some dozen

numbers of countries were here to have an exposition on communications

and new technology that would probably not look so new now. I haven’t

looked back through the exhibits, historically, but in ’86 it was quite

exciting.

More importantly than just the exhibits themselves, I think, for

many people living in the Lower Mainland, this was one of the first

international highlighted moments for the city and more broadly, I

think, for our province. It brought attention that Vancouver had not

previously enjoyed. We certainly saw the interest in moving to Vancouver

and coming to B.C. after a very successful Expo.

So in that, the B.C. Enterprise Corporation Act, which was created

at the time, was established to allow the business of creating these two

particular welcome centres and the ability for it to have and contain

the indemnification and the liabilities. When Expo was over — and

that’s, again, some few years after; I believe 1989 is when the switch

came across — there was no longer really a need for the B.C. Enterprise

Corp. to do any business. So with the liabilities being transferred over

after Expo 86 and after 1989, those assets and liabilities were

transferred properly to the province and as Crown corps.

We’ve been working on what’s commonly known as PavCo — that’s what

everyone refers to it as. It operates B.C. Place and the pavilion, and

that has been working quite well with government support over the years

and strong support from the community as well.

It was a structure. It enabled something to happen which was

really important. That structure then was really no longer needed. The

pavilions were hived off — the ones that needed to be — and have been

operating successfully since. And the Enterprise Corp. has just not had

any operations for those 30 years since.

Again, as to why we didn’t alter the legislation — as we’re doing

here today, hopefully — that’s lost, maybe, to the fog of history at

this point.

D. Ashton: As a child, I remember my dad taking me down to the world’s fair

in Seattle. That was in the early, early ’60s, and it made a mark on my

life — you know, seeing what can be done, as a young child visiting a

new community, a new city. Expo 86 did the same thing, where British

Columbia opened its arms and welcomed the world. And yes, it did make a

big difference for B.C. in the world.

Is there any impact that the minister or staff can think of that

will affect the B.C. Pavilion Corp. board with this deletion of the B.C.

Enterprise? Is there any cause and effect of the deletion of this on

PavCo?

[1:35 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: The short answer is there will be no effect on PavCo. It’ll be

able to continue to operate. I was just checking in because there are

some small administrative savings, but I don’t think there of any great

significance in the streamlining of this process. But PavCo will be able

to do what it does for Vancouver and British Columbia, and that’s a good

thing — and in a much more direct way.

D. Ashton: Would there be any effect on the B.C. Pavi­lion corporate

board with this amalgamation of B.C. Enterprises?

Hon. N. Cullen: We maybe just had a slight hard time hearing the question.

Specifically, which board was the member referring to? I know questions

are supposed to go one way, but just to clarify it so we can answer it

properly.

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

Is there going to be any effect on the B.C. Pavilion Corp. board

with this amalgamation?

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

D. Ashton: Further to that, will this act have any effect on the financial

situation of the B.C. Pavilion Corp.?

Hon. N. Cullen: Similar to the question before, no. Not at all on the financial

aspects of PavCo and its ability to do its operations.

D. Ashton: Will it provide any new flexibility to government to deal with the

fiscal situation at PavCo or anything?

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

support or assist PavCo.

D. Ashton: Government, I noticed, provided $30.16 million in 2020 and 2021,

and $26.034 million in fiscal 2021-22 to the B.C. Pavilion Corp. to

assist it with the impact of COVID pandemic. Will the B.C. Pavilion

Corp. receive any further funding to assist with COVID ’19-20 pandemic

impacts?

Hon. N. Cullen: First of all, we were very proud and happy to support the two

through PavCo, the convention centre and B.C. Place, as of course many,

many businesses were impacted by the global pandemic. One would imagine

that a place like a convention centre, particularly, was impacted. The

numbers my friend quotes — the government was very supportive. I believe

the city of Vancouver was also very happy to receive that support to

make sure that these places remain viable when we do open back up and

allow people back into have conventions and gather again.

Out of the scope of this bill, I believe, just with respect to

what may come in terms of future financing and needs of PavCo…. But,

again, the legislation allows the board and the financial authorities

that it has and the operations of these two centres to continue on as

before. It just cleans up, in legislation in this place, who they are

and what legislation guides them.

D. Ashton: Just a couple more. B.C. Pavilion’s corporate financial statements

failed to show any surpluses over the next years.

[1:40 p.m.]

There is a mandate letter from Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sports

to B.C. Pavilion Corp. In that letter, it’s expected to “continue to

explore options for additional revenue streams.” Can the minister or

staff provide any details of what options at this point in time might be

considered?

Just a quick reinforcement of what the minister said, I come from

a community with a convention centre and an events centre. Everybody had

to double down during COVID to ensure, number one, the protection of

staff and the continued operation, even though people were going around.

You have some massive structures that require a lot of attention, both

financially and with staffing.

I would like to say, through yourself: “Thank you for doing that.”

These are incredibly important structures to the province of British

Columbia.

Hon. N. Cullen: I agree very much with the member’s final statement with respect

to what support meant, particularly for these large — sometimes very

large — buildings in many of our communities. No one knew, at the onset

of the global pandemic, how long it would last. But when it did appear

to have some sustaining effect and to go beyond a year, 18 months, two

years….

To simply have lost those staff and their expertise and to have

not kept up the buildings that are our convention centres, gathering

places and arenas would have been a huge mistake. The cost of then

trying to bring those back online when we were able to open up would

have been — I would argue, and I think many others would as well — much,

much more. We know it’s much harder and much more expensive to fix a

place that has run down than to keep it going in a viable way, even

though people aren’t coming in and out, other than staff.

With respect to TAC’s mandate letter, Tourism, Arts and Culture….

I think the questions might be better directed to the minister with

respect to the ambitions towards PavCo looking for other and alternative

revenue sources.

It’s always a natural and good expectation of government to keep

the entrepreneurial and ambitious spirits of our enterprises going, but

I think it’s out of the scope of this bill. This bill does what it does,

but it does not affect things like seeking further revenues for PavCo

and others to be sustainable and more viable into the future.

D. Ashton: In 2019, the government was seeking B.C. Pavilion Corp. to source

rights of sponsorship for B.C. Place Stadium, which is operated under

PavCo.

Could the minister enlighten us? Was that successful? That was the

RFP process.

Hon. N. Cullen: I don’t know the specific answer to that question, but I’d be more

than happy to work with the member to follow up with the Ministry of

Tourism to find out, on the question of sponsorship and other

alternative revenue sources, what the current state of PavCo is and what

it might be into the future.

As Minister of Municipal Affairs, I’m not involved in the

day-to-day workings of PavCo. I’m simply responsible, legislatively, for

how they are structured within our laws, hence us here today with this

legislation.

Clause 1 approved.

On clause 2.

D. Ashton: Can the minister outline what properties B.C. Pavilion Corp. owns

besides B.C. Place and the Vancouver Convention Centre — and also, if

the minister has it at his fingertips, the corresponding value of these

properties?

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

I’m not sure if my colleague was asking for the value of any other

potential properties they own or values of these two properties. I don’t

have that at hand, but I can certainly endeavour to find out — again,

probably working with the Minister of Tourism to see what the current

valuation of the convention centre and B.C. Place is. I don’t have that

in my files right now.

D. Ashton: So the only two buildings that PavCo has, at this point in time,

are B.C. Place and the convention centre? There are no other properties

that are on the books or anticipated to be moved over to the books, at

this point in time, during this transaction of the amalgamation of the

B.C. Enterprise unit?

[1:45 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: Yes. What PavCo owns and operates are those two centres, the B.C.

convention centre and B.C. Place. That’s it. That’s their full

holdings.

D. Ashton: B.C. Pavilion Corp.’s latest service plan indicates a net proceed

of $15 million related to a potential land sale as part of the 2024-2025

budget. May I ask which property these proceeds will be coming

from?

Hon. N. Cullen: This is falling into the now growing list of a follow-up category,

of potential land sales perhaps connected but not pertinent to this bill

that’s in front of us. But happy to work with the member again on

specific questions around the potential sale of land and what those

properties may or may not be.

D. Ashton: It’s just that with this amalgamation and seeing…. I just want to

have a look at the entity. This, I really feel, gives us an opportunity

to look inside by having staff here, especially with an

amalgamation.

The next question is…. If the minister doesn’t have it at his

fingertips, he could also let me know. Why is B.C. Pavilion Corp.

selling the land, and is the revenue earmarked for something

specific?

Hon. N. Cullen: I will only challenge a small term that my friend used about

amalgamation. This isn’t really that. What this legislation does is take

something that was created for Expo 86 way back in the day…. It was the

structure that the government of the day used in terms of the B.C.

Enterprise Corp. It stopped functioning, really, after three years,

except for these two properties that still, happily, exist

today.

All we’re doing is housekeeping legislation to get rid of the old

part of the act that had the Enterprise Corp. in it — it hasn’t

functioned in 30 years — and, of course, hive off PavCo so that the B.C.

convention centre and B.C. Place have the right legislation attached to

them so they can continue to do their job. There’s not really an

amalgamation going on. It’s simply legislative housekeeping.

To his specific question about how PavCo is doing as a corporate

entity…. I’m more than happy to arrange that conversation. I’m sure

other members in this place may be curious about many of the questions

that he has — the health of the corporation, future plans, all of that.

I’m more than happy to arrange that conversation with the Minister of

Tourism, Arts and Culture, who is entirely responsible for its function

that way. So more than happy to get into how PavCo is doing, what it’s

hoping for, for the future.

This legislation isn’t really amalgamating anything. It’s just

simply cleaning up old legislation that is three decades past when it

ought to have been fixed. But we’re here today.

No harm, no foul. It hasn’t caused any harm that I’m aware of in

terms of operating these two big centres in Vancouver. You want your

legislation to speak accurately to what the world actually looks like. I

know it’s not always the tradition of this place, but we aim to

please.

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

It’s just that in my notes…. It dissolves the British Columbia

Enterprise Corp., BCEC, and repeals the British Columbia Enterprise

Corporation Act under which B.C. Pavilion Corp. — i.e., PavCo — acts as

the agent of government. In that, it transfers from BCEC to the

government all the assets and obligations and liabilities to BCEC, which

there may be some common naming on the properties, and allows the

government to deal with these assets, even though they may be registered

in the British Columbia Enterprise Corp.

That allows the powers of PavCo to operate as the sole entity over

the assets and liabilities of BCEC, even just in the naming and on the

title of, maybe, these properties.

[1:50 p.m.]

Hon. N. Cullen: What’s a little different about this is that it’s not a Crown

corp. It’s registered under the Business Corporations Act, PavCo is, but

the government owns the single share. So the people of British Columbia,

the government of British Columbia, own the assets. When we transfer

liabilities over, when we transfer the assets over in the legislative

cleanup that we’re doing, nothing has changed that fact.

Of those two properties in Vancouver, which are very valuable….

We’ll find out what the exact value is, but given real estate prices,

that’s a hard thing to pin down day to day. It is sitting under the B.C.

corporations act, PavCo is. There’s one single share; we own it. That’s

how the structure is.

With respect to what will be different the day after, if this bill

passes and receives royal assent, it’s just cleaner legislatively in

terms of the authorities. But in terms of the ownership and the

liabilities, the fact that British Columbians remain the sole

proprietor, the sole owner, of this corporation will remain

unchanged.

Clause 2 approved.

On clause 3.

D. Ashton: The British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act is the

responsibility of Municipal Affairs, as the minister has stated, with

the exception of the act as it relates to the B.C. Pavilion Corp., which

is the responsibility of Tourism, Arts, Culture and Sport. For clarity,

can the minister tell us which minister will be responsible for this new

act, as this clause makes reference to “the minister”?

Hon. N. Cullen: Typically in legislation like this, we actually don’t name the

minister coming out, in terms of responsibility. That’s set by a number

of other statutes.

To my friend’s question, though, of who’s going to be responsible

for this in the end, it’s very likely to be the Minister of Tourism.

From my perspective as Minister of Municipal Affairs…. While it does

have, of course, lots of municipal implications, from my perspective, in

my opinion — we’ll see how this statutes act comes out in the end — it

just makes a lot more sense for the Minister of Tourism to be

responsible for PavCo. That’s where the conversations go back and forth.

Clearly, the convention centre and whatnot are very much integrated into

our tourism planning and what we hope to do in terms of bringing in

visitors.

Again, in legislation like this, we don’t often name the actual

minister who’ll be responsible, but it’s a good guess it probably won’t

be me.

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

question.

The minister explained that there is one shareholder and one

shareholder only for PavCo, but with BCEC coming in, is there still only

one share? And who owns that share? And will that share be struck, as

the company, from the records totally at this joining — not amalgamation

— of the company or the striking from the records of the entire entity

of the company of BCEC?

Hon. N. Cullen: I probably misspoke a little earlier. I know we’re not supposed to

say that in this place, but it happens. There’s a sole shareholder.

That’s us. That’s the people of British Columbia, as represented by the

province of B.C. In cleaning this up legislatively…. In terms of how

many shares there are, it’s somewhat irrelevant. We’ll find out, though,

exactly the number of shares. It depends on the structure that was put

in place 35 years ago or more.

But in terms of all the shares that are contained, they are solely

owned by the province of British Columbia. If there are any BCEC shares,

this original corporation, those are extinguished, so there are no

shares to concern ourselves with. If it’s one or if it’s ten, the

province of British Columbia, the people of British Columbia, ultimately

own them all.

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

single shareholder. That’s us.

Clauses 3 and 4 approved.

On clause 5.

[1:55 p.m.]

D. Ashton: That’s what’s so wonderful about committee stage. We get to ask

those questions. And to see that…. My hat’s off to the minister. I know

this is coming at him, and it’s an entity that predates most of us

around here. To have that opportunity to ask these questions, especially

with staff in the room, is greatly appreciated.

Could the minister outline what rights, property and assets BCEC

corporation has and the value of that? Now, the value may come back

again if they don’t have that — I fully understand it — but as of the

date that the shares are going to be extinguished or right there before.

Is BCEC on the Pavilion? Is BCEC on the tourism centre? That’s at this

point in time.

Hon. N. Cullen: To the best of our knowledge, BCEC doesn’t actually own any other

assets or properties or liabilities. The reason this is included in the

act is just in case they are in possession of something that, again, has

been lost over the last 30, 35 years in terms of the government records

and accounts. It immediately transfers over to the government as well.

We didn’t want any properties that somebody forgot to list in the proper

way to BCEC suddenly to become known and then have a corporation that

doesn’t exist and properties or some assets or liabilities attached to a

now non-existent corporation.

Just for clarity’s sake, we allow PavCo to go on in the new act.

BCEC no longer exists. We don’t believe they have any assets. If they do

— if one is found through some sort of legal process — it’s simply

deemed part of the ownership of British Columbia through the

government.

Clause 5 approved.

On clause 6.

D. Ashton: On the assets on the other side, are there any obligations and/or

liabilities that the minister or staff know that BCEC may have at the

point of extinguishment?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, no. We don’t believe BCEC has any of those obligations or

assets or liabilities — that we’re aware of.

Clauses 6 and 7 approved.

On clause 8.

D. Ashton: The minister may have answered this. He has explained that if

there are any shares outstanding, they will be owned, with the passing

of this bill, by the people of British Columbia, i.e., the government.

Does the minister know what type of shares were issued with BCEC and how

many shares were actually issued?

Hon. N. Cullen: To the question: no, we don’t know. To the foundation of it,

though, those shares are cancelled if they do exist. If there were one

or 20 or 200, once this enactment takes place, they are

eliminated.

You don’t want to have extra little bits hanging around in terms

of assets or liabilities that can later be questioned in any kind of

property arrangement. That’s why we wanted to make this perfectly clear

and clean — that the convention centre, and PavCo writ large, will be an

entity unto itself. Any vestiges left over from BCEC…. Simply, assets

will be transferred, and shares are eliminated.

Clause 8 approved.

On clause 9.

D. Ashton:

Section 4(3) of the British Columbia Enterprise Corporation Act

states: “The Public Service Act and the Public Service Labour Relations

Act do not apply to the company….”

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

was?

[2:00 p.m.]

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Hon. N. Cullen: I’m wondering if my friend might be able to clarify. I think we’re

section 9, and I’m trying to see where in

section 9 he might be

reading that. I’m reading this

section in a different way, just in terms

of the repealing of the BCEC Act itself. If my friend can clarify…. I’m

not doubting his word at all, but I’m just not reading that in terms of

this

section of the act.

D. Ashton: Sorry. In my notes, I have that under

section 4(3). I may have

copied…. Under clause 9, 4(3). My mistake, possibly.

I was just asking — could the minister answer it? — if the BCEC

has any purpose with those two acts, the Public Service Labour Relations

Act and the Public Service Act, in that provision? I apologize for my

numbers, and I couldn’t see it quickly. Could staff comment on that to

possibly give me an answer under the wrong numbers, as of my fault,

under BCEC’s corporate act?

Hon. N. Cullen: Again, I’m looking through

section 9, and I don’t see that. The

section 9 I see is a repeal

section — the British Columbia Enterprise

Corporation Act, RSBC,

Section 35 is repealed. They don’t have any

employees. They don’t have staff. Just in terms of some of the specifics

my friend might be concerning himself with, with regards to what’s

changing, it doesn’t actually affect any people.

My suspicion in this is that, again, this is the clause-by-clause

elimination of the B.C. Enterprise Corp. out of existence, and you’ve

got to take each piece out and eliminate it by text. But that is a bit

of a guess. But I’m more than happy to follow up with my friend — and

hopefully we’ll be able to do it today — just with respect any concerns

that he might have about the way he’s reading that section.

D. Ashton: I do apologize if this number is off, but BCEC had an

article that

allowed it to expropriate lands without the consent of the owner in the

area of False Creek, which was the Expo lands, as we refer to them.

Could the minister or staff…? Again, I might be challenging them a

little bit because of the timing of this being so many years ago. What

was the purpose of the provision, or was there any other purpose of the

provision, other than acquiring land for Expo?

Hon. N. Cullen: My friend is definitely challenging my PavCo history, which was

not extensive to start with. But through the briefings that I’ve been

given with respect to this act that we’re changing, the original

prescripts in terms of land expropriation may well have been in the

efforts to build pretty substantial structures in the middle of

Vancouver. In terms of transferring over to the new entity under the

PavCo Act, what my friend sees in the new legislation is exactly what

powers they have. It would not extend into areas of the right and powers

to land expropriate.

But I’m more than happy to follow up. I think this is interesting.

I feel like going and visiting PavCo, those offices, and finding out

exactly…. Perhaps the hon. Speaker might have some memories of

expropriations that took place when he was a child in Vancouver. Perhaps

not. He would have been a very engaged young citizen if he does know

about it.

But I don’t want to make too light of this. The housecleaning of

this act is simply to do that. All the statutes, articles, powers and

liabilities that move over to PavCo, again, as B.C., the only, sole

shareholder…. That’s exactly what we’re looking to do.

[2:05 p.m.]

But if I find any information in our conversation this afternoon

that will put a little bit more light on this, I’ll be happy to share it

with my friend in the House.

D. Ashton: Thank you to the minister for that answer. Also included in that

was the loan privatization section. Does the minister know if BCEC has

any outstanding liabilities or any loans outstanding in conjunction with

PavCo on the properties that have been mentioned in the

amalgamation?

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

liabilities.

D. Ashton: It was mentioned by the minister and by staff — the intention to

streamline the province’s current legislation by eliminating the

redundancy of this. Can the minister tell me, or would he know of, how

much time has been spent with BCEC on administrative costs, on staff

costs? Would he have any idea?

I don’t want to push my luck on going back 30 years, but over the

entity, how much is BCEC costing the people of British Columbia at this

point in time, per annum?

Hon. N. Cullen: My understanding is that there’s, again, no staff associated to

BCEC. There is an annual report that has to be filed. An assistant

deputy minister must sign corporate documents on behalf of the minister.

The Office of the Auditor General performs an annual financial audit of

BCEC, but one would imagine that would not be a very expensive exercise,

as they do not operate and have not operated for the last 30

years.

My understanding of this, coming from the administration, from the

civil service side of things, is that there’s an ADM who’s had to go

through this process. It’s a once-a-year thing. There’s nothing really

to report, simply because there’s not been any activity for more than 30

years. Again, I mentioned this a little bit earlier in our conversation

that there is not a significant cost savings by what we’re doing here

today, simply because we weren’t spending a lot of money or time on it.

We’re not expecting some sort of windfall to the treasury in what we’re

doing yet. It just is a much cleaner prospect.

Filing annual reports for an entity that doesn’t operate seems

silly to me, but it was required because it existed legally. It will no

longer, after, if the House chooses to pass this legislation.

D. Ashton: Were those reports generated internally by staff, or were outside

auditors required to put their seal on it?

Hon. N. Cullen: It’s a very good question. I want to be precise on this, as I was

imprecise earlier in the shares question. In order to have maintained

the BCEC as a corporate entity over these last three decades here, the

following administrative activities that have had to take place…. Again,

if we’re able to make PavCo its own entity, it does all its reporting.

Of course, it’s audited. It’s a very significant operation, and it will

do all those things.

But in terms of the original parent company — if we want to call

it that; I think that’s a fair characterization — it had to do four of

the following things: maintain BCEC standing with the registrar of

companies through Municipal Affairs and Tourism, Arts and Culture; the

legal services branch solicitor prepares and files an annual report and

prepares annual resolutions and other corporate documents for

signing.

[2:10 p.m.]

Again, I haven’t looked at their corporate filings, but one would

assume without any activity, there’s a not a lot of those.

Secondly, an assistant deputy minister of Municipal Affairs acts

as one of the directors of BCEC. This is the way that it was structured.

From time to time, the assistant deputy minister is required to sign

corporate documents on behalf of the minister responsible. I’ve only

been here a short time in this role. In the last eight months, nothing

has come forward from BCEC to me. I could check with my predecessors, as

my friend could check with Ministers of Municipal Affairs before.

Unlikely they were signing a lot of documents.

Thirdly, to ensure that the corporate requirements for an audit

are met, the Office of the Auditor General performs an annual financial

audit of BCEC. One would have to go to the Auditor General’s office to

ask how exhaustive that is. I don’t mean to make light of it, but again,

the Enterprise Corp. hasn’t done anything in 30 years. I’m suspecting

the audit is not exactly very expensive or timely, but one never knows

with auditors. Sometimes they find interesting things to study and talk

about.

Lastly, the Ministry of Finance’s office of the comptroller

general maintains BCEC as a listed entity in the government reporting

entities. So every year, the comptroller general has to list off all of

the entities. It gets listed.

Those are the four things that have to be performed every year,

legally, because it’s a corporation. It’s a government corporation. Year

in and year out, for the last three decades, probably without the

knowledge of 100 percent of British Columbians, except for the few

people involved with this, that has been going on. If this legislation

passes as we’ve designed it, that will cease to happen.

Again, I wanted to be very cautious and quite specific that

there’s not a great deal of savings that we’re expecting back to

government by eliminating the BCEC. But it is also a silly thing to do

to keep reporting and auditing and doing all the rest for an entity that

has not functioned for more than three decades.

Clause 9 approved.

On clause 10.

D. Ashton: It’s my understanding that this act will come into force by

regulation. I’m just asking the minister if he could give me a time

frame for how long he anticipates that, through regulation, this is

going to bring us into functionability, where there will be the

cancellation and the absorption of the assets, whichever they may be, in

the PavCo.

It’s my understanding, again, that this is going to be done by

regulation. So do the minister and his staff have a time frame that they

can anticipate the finality of BCEC?

Hon. N. Cullen: My friend is correct. This is done by regulation, so it’ll be an

order-in-council. One thing that I neglected to mention in our

conversation so far, through the second reading, is that PavCo is very

much involved with us in this conversation and are supportive of it. I

don’t know why I neglected to mention that before.

[2:15 p.m.]

It’s important in terms of reassuring people in the tourism sector

— people who run hotels, people who run events at the convention centre

and B.C. Place — that the people who are in charge of those operations

on the day-to-day basis are supportive of the way that this is happening

and, I wouldn’t doubt, have probably been asking for this for some time,

although it hasn’t hindered their operations.

With respect to how long it would take, we will work with our

partners, PavCo, as well as the Ministry of Tourism, Arts and Culture.

We want to do this together, do it properly. But in terms of the…. It’ll

be done in a timely way, I think it’s very safe to say. But we’re then

getting into the dark alchemy of how long it takes to get up into an

order-in-council and cabinet operations and all those mysteries, which

the Minister of Health knows very, very well. Being relatively new to

this place, I’m still mystified, in a Hogwarts sort of sense of things,

how things come together with a wish and a wand.

All that to say: bringing it forward in a timely way that will

work with PavCo, work with Tourism and, again, not disrupt any of the

activities that we have taking place with respect to the two places that

will remain under the new act and the pavilions act.

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

years. I think that’s what I heard.

Minister, thank you very much, and a special thanks to your staff.

We do have some questions, and I think they’re good questions to have a

look at it. I know this has been hanging on the books for a long

time.

I would like to thank, again, your staff and you, Minister, for

the briefing and for the ability to ask questions on behalf of the

people of British Columbia. I look forward to there being a few less

entities like BCEC that drive the time frames of those in other levels

of government having to look at “shells or empty shells.” Thank you

again.

Hon. N. Cullen: To my friend across the way, thank you for the very good

questions, not just on the technical aspect of what we’re doing, which,

again, I don’t see is at all controversial — just some important

housekeeping that was a few decades in the coming — but also the

commitment to follow up with respect to PavCo, to work with my colleague

the Minister of Tourism and her staff to find the answers to the

questions that my friend is looking for.

You talked about expropriation potentials. Does that still exist

as a power? Also, the health of PavCo as an entity. How is it doing?

What are its prospects?

I think my friend had some other questions. I think they were much

more operational, which are fine questions, out of the scope of this

particular bill but certainly viable questions for us.

In terms of the expediency, yes, timely is the specific word I’ve

been given — not 30 years, not 30 minutes — to get the order-in-council

put through.

I very much echo his sentiments — Lynn Tang for helping me out in

sorting through some of the history of this, which predates many of us

here to a significant extent. But it’s an interesting part of B.C.’s

history and Vancouver’s history, specifically the government of the day

setting up an enterprise corporation, creating what is now a government

corporation, through PavCo, in order to facilitate the building and

operation and running of these two very important facilities, which made

Expo 86 a success and has led to Vancouver being placed on the world map

in terms of being a place where people were interested in and wanting to

come and all the successes that have come from that for our great city

and our province.

Clause 10 approved.

Title approved.

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

I hope, unanimous support.

I move that the committee rise and report the bill complete

without amendment.

Motion approved.

The committee rose at 2:19 p.m.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

[2:20 p.m.]

Report and

Third Reading of Bills

BILL 31 — B.C. PAVILION

CORPORATION

ACT

Bill 31, B.C. Pavilion Corporation Act, reported complete without

amendment, read a third time and passed.

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

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

Second Reading of Bills

BILL 34 — OPIOID DAMAGES AND

HEALTH CARE COSTS RECOVERY

AMENDMENT ACT, 2022

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

The Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act was enacted

in 2018 in this Legislature to assist government in pursuing recovery of

health care costs incurred as a consequence of the ongoing crisis

involving the use of opioids in our province since 2017. And you’ll hear

significantly more from the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions on

this question.

The government has accelerated its response to the ongoing public

health emergency by investing more than $1 billion in additional funding

to expand existing services and add new resources across the full

spectrum of mental health and substance use care. In fact, if you look

across the health care system, the two largest areas of increase in the

budgets of health care and health care organizations are, one, for

mental health and addictions care and, two, for the B.C. emergency

health services and the Ambulance Service. And a significant amount of

impact on their costs has been the impact of the overdose public health

emergency, as well as its impact, obviously, on health care workers

across the province.

The crisis, to say the least, has not abated. As we said at the

time, we know the costs will continue to increase — the human costs,

which are incalculable, and the costs to the community, to families,

and, of course, ultimately to the government. Very unfortunately, the

crisis is not reaching an end and continues to have a devastating impact

on our communities and on our health care system. As the province funds

health care for our residents, it bears the cost of providing care to

those who have to be treated for problematic substance use and

addiction.

I’m just going to summarize our argument here in the bill and then

get into some of the details of this question in my remarks. These costs

include the provision of emergency health services by paramedics and our

ambulance service, a very significant response to overdose events; the

cost of hospital treatment; the costs associated with mental health and

addiction services; and all kinds of related costs.

These measures, as I say, of health care costs do not and cannot

account for the immeasurable personal losses. They also do not begin to

account for the direct financial costs to the individuals who are

directly impacted by the opioid crisis or to their family members and

friends and society as a whole that are related to this ongoing crisis.

There’s not, I think, a member of this House who does not know a family,

has not been in touch with a family, who has not been touched by the

impact of the overdose public health emergency.

These costs are, to say the least, incalculable. It was in part

for this reason, as one element and only one element of our response,

that the Attorney General at the time, the member for Vancouver–Point

Grey, the incoming Premier, together with the Hon. Minister of Mental

Health and Addictions, the member for New Westminster at the time, Judy

Darcy, whom members of this House will know, led the country in stepping

up to commit to holding the parties who are responsible for the opioid

crisis accountable for their actions. That’s what they did in 2018, and

that’s what we did, first in court and then as a legislature, to ensure

and to enable that court case. I’m going to speak about some of those

things in a little while.

[2:25 p.m.]

On August 29, 2018, the Attorney General and the Minister of

Mental Health and Addictions jointly announced that as one part of the

government’s response, and only one part, to fight the overdose epidemic

in B.C., a public health emergency, government had commenced a proposed

class action against more than 40 different manufacturers and

distributors of brand-named and generic opioid products in

Canada.

What’s happened, of course, since then is that other jurisdictions

have joined us in this effort. The lawsuit was launched, and since then,

I am encouraged to see that Ontario, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,

Nova Scotia, Prince Edward Island, and Newfoundland and Labrador have

enacted similar statutes. In fact, a number of those jurisdictions are

enacting amendment statutes parallel to the ones that we’re doing

today.

The prospect of the success of the action, as people will know, in

the circumstances is significantly impacted by provinces united in

pursuing recovery from defendants. Canadian jurisdictions are following,

in this sense, what has happened in U.S. jurisdictions where similar

actions have taken place both against companies in this area and other

lawsuits related to tobacco, and they have managed to secure settlement

by consolidating their causes of action. By uniting together rather than

launching a large number of distinct actions, it’s more likely for a

defendant to agree to a single settlement with all plaintiffs. This is

hugely advantageous.

While there were questions, including questions by the opposition

at the time, around the launching of this action, the coming together of

provinces in this effort…. This has happened subsequently, and we’ll

talk about the tobacco litigation, which forms sort of a parallel basis

for the kinds of actions we’re taking today, where initially there was

some public controversy about the initial legislation. There were issues

around it. The legislation that was in place passed in 2000. The Liberal

government that took over subsequently continued to pursue those

actions. In fact, it was a Liberal government that was in power when

that legislation was sustained in the courts.

So I think that what we have in Canada on this question is a

coming together that was led initially by the former Attorney General,

the member for Vancouver–Point Grey, and the former member for New

Westminster, Judy Darcy. That action now has been sustained and is being

pursued by other jurisdictions, and I think that that is a very positive

thing.

Now, the action alleges that the pharmaceutical manufacturers and

distributors who promoted and sold opioid products caused a spike in

addiction rates through various means, including by intentionally

marketing their products in a way designed to increase demand while

fully knowing the products’ addictive and harmful nature. That action,

of course, seeks to recover health care costs incurred as a consequence

of those companies’ actions to market, promote and sell opioid products

as pharmaceuticals that were less addictive, less subject to abuse and

diversion and less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal than other

kinds of pain medications.

The legal action commenced in 2018 and has continued to progress.

As I noted, other Canadian jurisdictions have joined British Columbia,

and we’ll be talking about jurisdictions joining us in this action as we

further discuss this bill to hold opioid manufacturers and distributors

to account.

Following in the steps of our government, as I said, other

governments have joined us, and it is our hope that with the passage of

further strengthening the action in the courts.

I’m pleased to say that the existing act has been successful in

allowing governments to move forward with the case, being led, of

course, by the outstanding counsel of the Ministry of Attorney

General.

Earlier this year government announced that it had reached a

settlement with Purdue Pharma. Canada, the provincial and territorial

governments have agreed to a total of $150 million in monetary benefits,

plus additional benefits, including access to information and documents

from Purdue Pharma that are relevant to the lawsuit.

This settlement is the largest one of its kind by government in

Canadian history. Although it has not yet been approved in the courts,

it is a sign of success. We nevertheless acknowledge that it represents

but a fraction of the true expense of damages associated with the

overdose crisis.

The proposed settlement represents a significant step forward in

holding companies such as Purdue Pharma accountable for their actions.

We know that the settlement will not make up in almost any way for the

loss of loved ones over the last many years. But it is still a

significant step, one that follows similar steps in the United States

and seems to me is

an act of justice that we must continue to pursue. Of

course, Purdue Pharma is but one defendant in the case.

[2:30 p.m.]

At this time, what we’re proposing to do…. I’ll get into some of

the principles behind the details of the legislation. As members will

know, this is an amendment act, so we want to focus on those details.

Then, obviously, we’ll have a further opportunity for an exchange at

committee stage. But I want to talk specifically and sort of lay out

where these changes are and then get back to, as well, the purpose of

the legislation.

Since 2018, the province has continued to add defendants who meet

the

definitions of “manufacturer” or “wholesaler,” but as the litigation

has progressed, legal counsel have identified other potential defendants

who are not captured by those

definitions, despite their alleged

contribution to an “opioid-related wrong,” as defined in the original

legislation, the 2018 legislation.

It’s the desire to make certain that the definition of the term

“manufacturer” captures manufacturers of the active ingredients

necessary to produce opioid products. This is intended to eliminate a

risk that a court could conclude that the different definition does not

capture. Those are part of the changes. It’s important, if you are

putting forward a lawsuit, to ensure that all of the potential

defendants who have responsibility are captured by the lawsuit. That is

the purpose of that first set of amendments.

Additionally, it’s proposed to amend the act to add a direct cause

of action against a “consultant” and define that term to allow pursuing

recovery from parties who acted as consultants, in this case, to

manufacturers or wholesalers and provided strategic advice on the

marketing and sales of opioid products. Those consultants who have

provided consulting and strategic services and advice to opioid

manufacturers and wholesalers on the marketing and sales of opioid

products should be held accountable for their actions as much as

manufacturers and wholesalers are.

It is proposed also to add to the act a provision that’s found in

some other provinces’ statutes to provide for joint and several

liability of individual directors and officers of the corporate entities

that are defendants. Currently the act does not provide for joint and

several liability of directors and officers. We do not want British

Columbia to be in a different position than other jurisdictions in this

respect, and directors and officers of these defendant corporate

entities should be accountable, as well, for any role they had in their

companies’ actions.

It is proposed also to clarify the formula for calculating the

market shares of defendants to allow for accounting of the separate and

distinct impacts of the manufacturing of opioid products and the

distribution or wholesaling of opioid products. This will ensure that

liability may be apportioned appropriately between both manufacturers

and wholesalers against whom a claim is proven.

Finally — I referred to this earlier — it’s proposed to expressly

include a right of action by the federal government within the act to

enable the Canadian government to recover from private parties the

health care–related expenditures that have been made in British

Columbia. This parallels actions that are taking place in other

jurisdictions and comes, certainly, at the request of the federal

government.

As we know, the federal government funds health care in the

provinces and territories via transfer payments. It is our government’s

perspective that the federal government should be able to pursue

recovery from opioid manufacturers and wholesalers, as provincial and

territorial governments are. It is proposed to add a new provision

mirroring the current

section 2 of the act, which applies to the

The proposed class action, hon. Speaker, as you know, is expected

to be certified in 2023. Strengthening the act, as we propose to do

through this bill, will serve to extend the procedural advantages

included within it to the action in progress. This will serve the

interests of the people of B.C., who have been impacted in profound ways

by the opioid crisis, and it will allow recovery of some of the vast

costs that we have incurred to provide health care to those who have

suffered from opioid addiction.

Our government remains, of course, steadfast to ending this public

health emergency with historic investments — which we’ll get into in a

second. We’re building a comprehensive and seamless continuum of mental

health and addictions care, a system that includes early intervention,

harm reduction measures, treatment and recovery.

[2:35 p.m.]

We are treating substance use and addictions as a health care

issue, rather than a criminal justice one, by being the first in Canada

to act on decriminalization. We’re standing up for supports in an

unprecedented way, but we are also facing a rising tide of need. I want

to say that the legislation that we passed in 2018 has a place in

history in B.C., and it really builds on the work that this Legislature

has done and that subsequent governments have done, with respect to the

litigation around tobacco.

People will remember that in 1998, British Columbia became the

first jurisdiction in Canada and the Commonwealth to launch a lawsuit

for the recovery of those tobacco-related health care costs that were

incurred by the government of B.C. as a result of the past wrongful

conduct of the tobacco industry, including what is objectively clear, I

think: the deceptive promotion of their product. That lawsuit made a

series of assertions about tobacco manufacturers in that

case.

What is interesting and important — what makes the work of the

Legislature, even the work in debate, very important — is that the

action was authorized, originally, by

an act called the Tobacco Damages

and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, 1998. It was launched and supported

to provide the basis for that suit. The defendant manufacturer

successfully challenged the constitutionality of that act, and a new act

was introduced in 2000, the Tobacco Damages and Health Care Costs

Recovery Act. On January 24, 2001, the province relaunched its action

against the tobacco industry.

It’s important to note, when we make changes like that, their

potential significance. We know that, of course, there was a change in

government, the member for Abbotsford West might remember, in 2001. This

has been an action that was justified and certainly maintained,

subsequently, by the previous government, including in his time as

Attorney General.

In September 2005, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld

the province’s right to sue the tobacco industry and concluded that that

act, the act passed in 2001, was constitutional. In March 2012, British

Columbia announced that it had partnered with five other Canadian

provinces to retain a national legal consortium to prosecute health care

claims against the Canadian manufacturers and their foreign

affiliates.

It’s this basis of action about tobacco-related illnesses and

disease that forms, shall we say, the intellectual basis and the public

policy basis for the action and the appropriate action taken and

commenced against opioid manufacturers. It’s similar to that action —

which was launched in 1997, relaunched in 2000 and affirmed by the

Supreme Court in 2005 — in that it seeks to make large corporate

entities accountable for the devastating effects of their harmful

products.

There are several elements of that that are, I think, important.

Of course, subsequent amendments to the bill strengthen the government’s

ability — in that case, as in this case today — to seek accountability.

That legislation established a statutory tort, the tobacco-related

wrong. That act was novel in establishing that statistical or

epidemiological evidence could be introduced to establish damages. It

also established provisions whereby liability could be based on risk

contribution. You see some of those elements laid out in this

legislation today.

The original tobacco legislation was amended and strengthened to

shift the burden of proof in relation to certain aspects of causation,

by requiring tobacco companies to prove that any breach of duty on their

part did not contribute to exposure to tobacco products and

tobacco-related disease. That was appropriate when the industry

continued to maintain that nicotine is not addictive, that smoking was a

matter of free choice and that they did not use deceptive practices to

encourage people to smoke. This, of course, was significantly and

repeatedly tested in the courts. As noted, the Supreme Court of Canada

supported this. This provided, of course, the basis for what we see in

this legislation today.

[2:40 p.m.]

I think it’s important, then, to reflect, as we move forward, on

the bill that we passed in 2018 and the reasons why we’re making some

changes and some additions through amendments today. I just want to

briefly go through the specific amendments, talk about their objectives

and the rationale for them, and then we’ll have further discussion of

these objectives and this rationale as we go forward in committee

stage.

If you look at those changes that we’re seeing, and there is not a

significant number of them, they all have a specific rationale. The

objective of the changes on the definition of manufacturer, and this is

the issue of ingredients that I spoke to earlier, is to ensure that the

act may be employed to pursue recovery from manufacturers of active

pharmaceutical ingredients in addition to manufacturers of drugs

included in the schedule. It is desired to amend the definition of

manufacturer to specifically include manufacturers of “active

pharmaceutical ingredients” contained in an opioid product.

Currently, in our view, the definition does not clearly capture

manufacturers of active pharmaceutical ingredients, which are essential

ingredients in the production of opioids, within its scope. It has been

established that some manufacturers of opioid products and manufacturers

of these ingredients played a key role in the manufacture and sale of

opioid products. By including these persons within the scope of the

definition, there is less risk the courts will conclude that it does not

apply, for reasons of definition, to manufacturers of active

pharmaceutical ingredients as distinct from manufacturers of opioid

products, which are, of course, defined in the current act.

Those are the first set of changes that have been put forward, and

we’ll be discussing the detail of that. I know the members will have

questions about that as we move forward to committee stage.

The second sets of amendments have the objective of expanding the

right of action to permit recovery from a consultant to be defined as “a

person in the course of providing services to a manufacturer or

wholesaler who assists the manufacturer or wholesaler in designing,

recommending and implementing strategies to increase sales of opioid

products in addition to defined manufacturers and

wholesalers.”

[J. Tegart in the chair.]

Companies that served as consultants who advise manufacturers or

wholesalers of opioid products may not readily be found to fall within

the definition of manufacturer and wholesaler. As written, the act does

not allow British Columbia to pursue consultants, including companies

that are known to have advised named defendants on the marketing of

opioid products that amounted to opioid-related wrongs as defined in the

act, resulting in the province incurring costs of health care

benefits.

Establishing a direct cause of action against the consultant would

serve to strengthen the prospect of legal recovery from companies that

advise manufacturers and wholesalers on the marketing of opioid products

and enhance the province’s position in negotiating for recovery. I would

say that this again makes sense. It expands and ensures that those who

need to be accountable be held accountable.

We’ll be going through the details of this in committee stage, but

the purpose of that, again, is to ensure that those who need to be held

accountable — and indeed are accountable — for these actions are held

accountable in the courts. That’s the purpose, of course, of the action,

but it’s the purpose of the change in legislation today.

Thirdly, the legislation deals with the joint and several

liability of directors and officers. This is, as noted, available in

other jurisdictions, but not in British Columbia. We want to make sure

of that joint and several liability of the defendant companies, whether

they’re manufacturers or wholesalers. It is, I think desired and

desirable to hold individuals employed by or affiliated with corporate

defendants jointly and severally liable so that responsibility is shared

by all involved and recovery of damages may be obtained from any of the

parties.

This may serve to increase, of course, the prospect of recovery by

ensuring that, again, those who are accountable are held accountable.

Such a provision is found in the analogous legislation of other Canadian

jurisdictions, Ontario and Alberta.

As noted at the beginning, this action was started by the Attorney

General, the former Minister of Mental Health and Addiction of this

government and has been picked up by multiple other governments across

the country. We want to ensure that that same responsibility that is in

the Ontario and the Alberta legislation is found here.

[2:45 p.m.]

Next, there is a very important issue of the market share

calculations, which is an important part of the legislation that was

brought forward. You’ll find that established in

section 1(6) of the

existing act, the current act, before this amendment. It’s for the

purpose of the court determining the market share of a defendant for

type of opioid products sold in British Columbia.

It does not account for the separate markets for the manufacturer

of opioid products and for the distribution of opioid products. It’s

desired to amend the formula to reflect that there are different markets

for the manufacturer of opioid products, for which liability is imposed

on defendants who are manufacturers, and the distribution of opioid

products, for which liability is to be imposed on defendants who are

wholesalers. Should they be involved, consultants would potentially

become jointly and severally liable for the share of liability of the

manufacturer or wholesaler that they consulted.

That’s the rationale. Of course, that’s the objective here, and

the rationale is that amending the formula to reflect the difference

between manufacturer and wholesaler defendants will permit the court to

more accurately calculate a particular defendant’s market share for a

particular opioid product, thereby enabling a just apportionment of

liability.

That set of issues, again, we’ll have the opportunity to discuss

at committee stage, but it forms the fundamental basis of this, which is

to ensure that the action that takes place, should they be held

accountable by the courts, that people are able to be held

accountable.

What’s the next and final main provision of the bill, as I

discussed before, is the application to the federal government. The

intent here is to extend the application of the term “government” as

government of British Columbia. This is to make explicit, and the view

and the rationale for this, which again…. Allowing the participation of

all the parties to the table. It’s not a requirement, necessarily, for

be allowed to participate in our own.

within the meaning of the term “government” within the act, as it is

unable to enact legislation creating liability for the totality of the

expenditures on health care. Provinces, of course, have exclusive

constitutional jurisdiction over property and civil rights.

If the legislation does not include the federal government and

B.C. does not include Canada within its scope of action, there’s a risk

that a judge certifying the class action will only certify class members

who have similar legislation, thereby excluding Canada from the

prospects of recovery. Including Canada, I think, within the scope of

the act strengthens the action and also is desirable, in my view anyway,

for all parties to the action.

That is the rationale, the objective and the rationale of the

different sections of the bill. I think, if you look at all of those,

they are consistent with both the purpose of the original legislation

and the overall purpose of the act.

What I would say: there is profound history. I think that we are

all…. Because so many people in British Columbia have been personally

affected by the impact of the overdose public health emergency, because

so many people in our broader community and other jurisdictions, as

well, have been so affected, so many people in the United States have

been so affected, it’s important, I think, to remember the profound

impact of some of the actions of some companies on people and the

actions that have been taken in other jurisdictions.

I note, in particular, in one state alone, without going on too

extensively about actions that have occurred in the United States, on

May 10, 2007, some 15 ½ years ago, the U.S. Attorney’s office for the

Western district of Virginia announced that Purdue pharmaceutical,

Purdue Pharma, one of the principal companies involved there, was

pleading guilty to misleading marketing in the United States. In that

one state alone, the Purdue paid $600 million — $600 million — in

criminal and civil settlements. Three executives pleaded guilty as

individuals to the criminal misbranding and were fined $34.5

million.

[2:50 p.m.]

As part of the plea agreement, a statement of facts was laid

forward. I’ll just quote from it briefly. It says that Purdue

supervisors and employers, with the intent to defraud or mislead,

marketed and promoted OxyContin as “less addictive; less subject to

abuse and diversion;” and “less likely to cause tolerance and withdrawal

than other pain medications.” They knowingly marketed OxyContin when

they knew better. I was looking through some of the ads that have been

put forward over the years about OxyContin — ones showing very

fit-looking joggers, referring to OxyContin, that said: “One to start

and stay with.” Indeed.

I think these actions, consistent with actions taken in the United

States and actions taken in jurisdictions across Canada, are actions

that we need to continue to pursue, to ensure, by making changes, as we

did with tobacco-related jurisdictions that have been pursued by

governments of both NDP and Liberal political stripes, to continue to

pursue an action that we think will bring some measure of justice but

also support for those dealing with the overwhelming impact of the

overdose public health emergency here in B.C. and the impact of that

emergency, of course, across the country.

I don’t need, I think, to describe in too much detail here the

impact of that. There are members of this House who are working on a

legislative committee now that are dealing with these very issues, and

they are profound. They’ve been the subject of discussion in this House,

and enormous action.

I talked about the $1 billion in increased spending that has taken

place, but also the losses. In August 2022, those losses were 169

suspected illicit drug toxicity deaths; 169. This was — and it’s

impossible to use the term “decrease” in this context — down from 191,

which it was in the previous August, August 2021. In other words,

profound. There were, from January 1 to July 31, 2022, 13,239

paramedic-attended calls related to the overdose public health

emergency.

In 2021, there were a total of 3,409 paramedic-attended drug

poisoning events and 343 deaths among Indigenous peoples in B.C. Since

2016, the year in which the public health emergency was declared, we

have lost a total of 1,327 First Nations people to toxic drug poisoning.

It is why the response by governments then and now have been so

systematic and, as well, inadequate to meet the demand of this

crisis.

The intent of this is not to take away from any of that action and

all the other actions that will continue to be required to deal with the

overdose public health emergency by governments and by our communities.

A public health emergency requires and demands an extraordinary

response, and one is there. This element of it — holding companies

responsible for their actions — is what this legislation is about: the

opioid damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act. These actions only

deal with part of that. They do not bring anybody back, and nobody

should pretend that they do.

I think — and I believe that other members of the House, I hope,

will support us in this — that people do need to be held accountable.

That accountability has to be expressed in the ways that can be

expressed today, and this is one of them: to ensure that those who were

responsible for marketing which was deceptive be held responsible for

that deception. Because the impact of that on people in our

communities…. I mean everywhere. There’s a tendency to focus on

particular areas of our communities and say: “That’s where the problem

is.” It is everywhere. There is not a member of this House who doesn’t

face this problem in their communities.

[2:55 p.m.]

I think, on behalf of the government; on behalf of my colleague

the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions; the Attorney General; the

former Attorney General; those people who brought forward this action on

the government side; and the people of B.C., that this action and this

legislation should be supported in this House as we continue to pursue

this action in the courts.

There is much more to be done to end this public health emergency.

This legislation builds on the work the government has done to hold

manufacturers accountable for the toll their products have taken on our

province, our community, our country. But we are still faced with the

toxic stream of illicit drugs that is robbing us of so much.

So much potential, so many lives being snuffed out before their

time. Every death, every single one, is more than the statistics, so

much more than a number on a list. Each death due to an overdose is a

tragedy, not just for the family of that person but for the whole

community — that person, their family, their community, all of us. It is

for our communities and our province.

We’ll never know what people who have died due to the toxic

illicit drug supply could have contributed to our society. We don’t know

what they would have contributed, but we know it would have been a lot.

And this is not acceptable. Collectively, I know we all mourn every life

lost to toxic drugs. We will never know what each one of these people

could have contributed, as I noted, if they had not lost their lives so

early and so prematurely. And the grief felt by people, by communities,

about this is profound.

My colleague the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions is

working hard every day to find ways to end this scourge, as are tens of

thousands of others across B.C. She has, of course, the full support of

our government to do so. The mandate of my ministry is to support that

work of the Minister of Mental Health and Addictions to improve B.C.’s

response to the opioid crisis across the full continuum of care —

prevention, harm reduction, safe prescription medications, treatment and

recovery. We are committed to doing that every day, as I know members of

this House who are working on this issue right now are committed to

do.

We have so much more to do, and we intend to do so. This piece of

legislation is only one element, but as has happened in other

jurisdictions, in communities across North America, in communities

across Canada, there is a need, a profound need, a rising tide of need

to hold people accountable for their actions, and we should do

so.

There is more to do, and we are committed to investing in the

services people need, but there is a need here for accountability, a

need for accountability that is supported by this legislation, a need

for accountability and fairness that is required of all of us, I think.

In my view, the steps taken here today to strengthen this legislation,

which is legislation that has already had some success….

It’s not yet approved by the court, that success, but an agreement

to $150 million in monetary benefits with Purdue Pharma shows that this

course of action was an appropriate course of action, that this

direction where British Columbia led and other jurisdictions have

followed, including some of the provisions of this particular act, which

supports the original acts that they brought forward in other

jurisdictions, is an example of some actions we can do both to

acknowledge the profound effects of this in our community and to hold

accountable people and companies that deserve to be held accountable for

their actions.

These amendments make that act stronger. They make it clearer.

They ensure that those who are to be held accountable are included in

the

definitions, that the impact and the need to ensure that the

participation of all governments in Canada, the federal government as

well as provincial governments, is assured, that those people involved

in the marketing of products who did not fit in the previous

definitions

as found in the act are included in those

definitions. All of these

changes support the original principle of the bill passed by this

Legislature and support the principles that are laid out in this

legislation. I think it’s important legislation.

[3:00 p.m.]

It’s obviously an amendment bill. Subsequently, perhaps later

today, probably on Monday, we’ll be talking about a health colleges

bill, which is an original act which is far longer and more complex than

this one. But I think it’s important.

I look forward to the contributions of my colleagues on the

opposition side, both here in second reading and then further at

committee stage, so that we can clarify our intent around the

legislation. I think that’s important and something I’ve tried to do

today, to ensure that the people of B.C., those who have suffered —

their families, their communities, this province — have access to the

justice that they deserve in our courts for actions that were, to my way

of thinking, completely unacceptable and led to consequences for people

— our loved ones and the people of B.C. — that need to be responded to

in this way.

So I ask all members of this House to support this piece of

legislation, Bill 34, at second reading, and that we have — and I know

we will — a good debate about these questions and these principles as

they fit into the details in our clause-by-clause examination of the

legislation.

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

reading.

M. de Jong: Thanks to the members of the House and the Minister of Health, who

has just spoken. It is clearly impossible to overstate the magnitude of

the tragedy that the opioid overdose crisis has had on families in this

province — loss of life and the cascading impact of that.

The minister has, I think, correctly pointed out that I would be

surprised if there’s a single member of the chamber that has not been

touched personally by a story, an incredibly tragic story, involving an

individual. We deal in this chamber, I suppose by necessity, in many

cases, with data and statistics and numbers, because it’s the way we

tend to quantify things. But it is, in the case of the loss of life and

the magnitude of loss of life that we have been dealing with, really

impossible to seize upon a number or any quantifiable instrument to try

to summarize what we have been confronted by.

I think we come to this conversation and discussion joined by that

understanding and joined by that appreciation. Of course, discussions

are taking place elsewhere here at the committee stage. I think all are

looking forward to the results of that work. I think all are

appreciative of the fact that an opportunity was created for members on

all sides of the House to provide input and provide ideas and provide

views on how to move forward.

This is also, at times, a very partisan place, and no secret that

the opposition, in voicing its dismay about the magnitude of the crisis,

has articulated its criticisms and disappointments with what it sees, at

times, as a failed strategy on the part of the government. I have to say

that I expect some of those criticisms will continue to be pursued,

hopefully, I think, in the context of providing alternative suggestions

and approaches going forward.

[3:05 p.m.]

That is a feature of this place that some people lament and

sometimes are puzzled by. But it is also, as we frequently say, far

better than the alternatives that we see in other societies around the

world where differences of opinion exist. Happily, in this case, I think

we are unified around the achievement of an objective, and that is to

reduce, as quickly as possible and as significantly as possible, the

numbers of people who are succumbing to the scourge of overdose-related

ailments and, in far too many cases, overdose-related deaths from

opioids.

This piece of legislation relates to part of an approach. I should

say, right off the bat, in responding to the Health Minister’s request,

the opposition is going to facilitate passage of this bill into

committee stage. I hope there was not too much doubt on the minds of the

minister and the government about that. There are a number of reasons

for that.

I’ve mentioned the preeminent reason, and that is our desire to

work constructively to take steps that will address this tragedy.

There’s another principle that has arisen in the course of the remarks

already made that does enjoy support from the opposition, and that is

the principle that those who have contributed to the misery and the loss

and the tragedy associated with this should be held accountable and

should be held responsible.

That guided this chamber and guided the opposition just over four

years ago, when the original legislation was presented to the House,

which, as I recall, enjoyed expedited passage through the House. I think

that that was a reflection of the concern that existed on both sides,

and a willingness that existed on both sides, to facilitate this notion

of judicial intervention, so that litigation could proceed in the

context that it has.

For all of that, I want to also say that the opposition sees

itself as having a role that it hopes to discharge at the committee

stage of the debate to ensure that what we have before us is achieving

the objectives that the government has articulated. That it is drafted

in a way that is consistent with those objectives.

It is an unusual state of affairs in our society, happily governed

by the rule of law, that every now and again — and the minister has

referred to the other classic example, relating to cases against tobacco

companies — governments go beyond the common law and say: “We are going

to create a cause of action. We are going to create a set of rules that

enable the pursuit of damages in the context of a set of rules that

otherwise would not exist, a statutory right of action.”

That’s what this represents, and that’s what the original

legislation in 2018 sought to establish. I should say I had, about 30

minutes ago, the benefit of a briefing from the very able staff who are

very much involved in the prosecution of this case. I was reminded that

the case — and the minister mentioned this in his remarks — was

commenced several months prior to the proclamation of the act

itself.

[3:10 p.m.]

That happened in 2018. The following year, an amended notice of

claim was filed that very much avails itself of the provisions of the

legislation that was passed in 2018 and is, I think one would fairly

characterize, a stronger claim for that reason, because it is able to

avail itself of the provisions of the act that created that statutory

claim.

We are now making changes, and we’ll have a chance to discuss, in

committee, the nature of those changes. But we should all be aware,

outside of the context of the magnitude of the tragedy we’re dealing

with, that that represents an extraordinary measure. A case has been

commenced, and the government and this chamber are now purporting to

alter, in various ways, some of the rules that will govern that case.

And we have an obligation to be cautious and careful and diligent about

ensuring the manner in which that is done.

We had a conversation earlier today in this chamber about another

matter that is very much in the public mind, and that is public safety.

We have heard, over the course of the last number of weeks, in the

course of that sometimes very vigorous debate, the impact of unintended

consequences when legislation is passed, either in this place or in the

senior parliament in Ottawa.

We need, I think, to take seriously our role to ensure that in

pursuit of an objective that we all share, in the passage of either the

original legislation or — now, more particularly — the amendment to that

original legislation, we are not inadvertently having unanticipated or

unintended consequences that may not be at the root of what is being

pursued.

I’ll touch, in the few moments available to me, on some of the

areas that the opposition will want to pursue. I should say candidly to

the minister that in the exchange I had with his staff, I tried to be as

candid as possible as to the areas where I thought we would want to have

a conversation.

This is a claim, a compensatory claim. The minister has correctly

pointed out it will do nothing to bring back those who have succumbed to

an opioid-related overdose. It also does not provide direct compensation

to individual families. It is a claim for compensation by

government.

I don’t say that in a critical way. It is just important that

people understand that the pursuit of defendants here relates to a claim

by government for compensation as it relates to health-related expenses.

I think that’s actually the term in the act: “health-related expenses.”

That is a defined term.

So when we move into that discussion, the minister should

anticipate some questions about the manner in which that will occur —

probably some questions about the “success” to date. We have heard about

the settlement — he has referred to it — with Purdue. There is a figure

that was, I think, widely circulated of $150 million. I am told in the

briefing that the distribution of that amount has not been

settled.

[3:15 p.m.]

I will ask the minister what that translates into from the point

of view of the government of British Columbia. My guess is there is

going to be a standard sort of per-capita application formula. I don’t

know to what extent there will be legal fees associated. I say that only

to make the point that the global figure is out there, but we need to be

very forthright with people about how that is translating into

compensation to the government of British Columbia in pursuit of these

matters.

The minister, in pointing to the legislation, spoke about some of

the changes that are being made here. I think there are two that are

particularly noteworthy. One is the creation of a new class of

defendant, and that is a consultant. I won’t read the act. We’ll have

plenty of time to do that in the committee stage. But again, by way of

forewarning to the minister, we will want to explore with him just how

broadly that net is being cast.

Now, I understand that a defendant, a consultant defendant, has

already been added to the action. I’m told that has happened, so when I

use the word “McKinsey,” I don’t think I’m…. And if I am, I’ll avail

myself of the protections of this chamber. But I’m told that those

documents have been — McKinsey or Mackenzie….

An Hon. Member: McKinsey.

M. de Jong: McKinsey — that they have already been added and that they are

indicative of the type of consultant defendant that the government

intends to pursue.

I’m a little bit concerned that the definition included in the

wording of the act may potentially include people that the government

may or may not wish to pursue. For example, in the case of a wholesaler

defendant, there are a number of pharmacies. Shoppers Drug Mart is a

defendant in this action. If you are a salesperson for Shoppers Drug

Mart, you are potentially, in the language used, accessible as a

defendant.

Maybe the government purposely wishes to preserve that as an

option. Maybe they don’t. But exploring with the minister and the

government precisely who could potentially be added as a defendant

because of the wording and the drafting included in these amendments is,

I think, a legitimate exercise of the opposition’s role in this chamber,

particularly in the case where the Legislature is creating this

statutory cause of action and now changing it midway through the

action.

The minister has pointed to, as well, the changes that are being

made to the calculation of market share. Some of this gets awfully

technical, and when you start seeing formulas incorporated in

legislative language, it can be a bit baffling at times, but as I

understand it, the distinction being made now as between manufacturers

and wholesalers is one that is potentially necessary. The original act

simply spoke to defendants, and calculating market share between the

manufacturers and wholesalers may well require that distinction. I don’t

know if that is true of consultants, but I suppose a consultant would be

associated with either a manufacturer or a wholesaler, so that may not

be necessary.

The amendments to the act contained in this bill provide for

involvement by the federal government. And, again, the minister will

hear from his staff that I posed some questions earlier and will in

committee stage — precisely what the government of British Columbia’s

intention….

[3:20 p.m.]

Health care is a constitutionally provincial responsibility. I

understand that the federal government is involved as it relates to the

Aboriginal health authority and the provision of health services on

reserve and to Aboriginal, Indigenous peoples. That strikes me as a

legitimate place for federal involvement or where there might be a

legitimate federal claim. The Canadian military would be

another.

But there is language in these amendments that suggests something

broader than that may be contemplated. So to the extent that the….

Presumably, the language here is the product of conversations between

representatives for the provincial government and the federal government

and is designed to breathe life into whatever agreements or

understandings were achieved between the two. I’ll be interested — and

we’ll be interested — to hear from the minister as to what that

entails.

Then, additionally, the minister has pointed to the provisions

that draw on language from other jurisdictions around joint and several

liability for directors and corporate officers. I certainly understand

the significance of that. I’m going to ask the minister, if the House

decides to afford the government the opportunity that amendment

represents, if and how it intends to make use of it. My reading of the

language — and the minister may not have had the benefit of speaking

with his staff, following my conversation with them — is that it will

require the government to name individuals as defendants.

In an earlier conversation, in talking about consultants, the

impression I had been left with is that the government’s intent is to

address that at the corporate level. This is precisely the opposite.

This speaks to naming the individuals. And to be fair, those

individuals, under the language employed here, would have the…. The onus

would shift to them to demonstrate that they took reasonable steps to

protect against opioid-related misconduct or were unaware of it all

altogether.

Again, I think it is a proper discharge of our responsibility as

the opposition to ask the minister and ask the government, at the

appropriate time, how it intends to make use of a tool that in the case

of Purdue, had that not been a settlement but had that been a judgment,

would have imposed $150 million liability on a single individual,

jointly and severally, which, again, may be something that the

government wishes to do.

It’s interesting, because normally, if we were having this

conversation…. I’ve been around this place long enough to know that the

response from government would be: “I don’t really want to talk about

this at all because it’s before the courts.” But, of course, we are

dealing with legislation that directly impacts how and why it is before

the courts. So I will try to be responsible and respectful of things

that can and cannot be spoken of during the course of

litigation.

But I do think the House is entitled to some information about the

present status of the litigation that this legislation directly relates

to — why it is necessary; has the government, as plaintiff, encountered

difficulties in prosecuting the case, in pursuing the claim. I shouldn’t

say that — pursuing the claim. It is not a criminal matter; it is the

pursuit of a civil claim for damages. And what is motivating the changes

to the original legislation that we see here.

[3:25 p.m.]

The challenge in having this kind of conversation is it almost

necessarily dehumanizes what, at the end of the day, is a fundamentally

human tragedy. Again, to end where I began, I can’t think of a…. When

you’re talking about that, you have to force yourself almost not to

think about the faces that you see, whose funerals you’ve attended,

because it becomes very difficult, then, to apply yourself to reading

words and numbers.

This tragic loss of life that has impacted all aspects of society,

families across British Columbia and across the economic stratus, is

unlike anything I think we have experienced. This won’t bring a single

person back. It will potentially assist in determining some measure of

responsibility for those who have contributed to the tragedy. That will

be determined either by a court of law or by admission in a settlement

agreement, and that work remains to be done.

All to say that the opposition is more than content to facilitate

the passage of the bill into committee stage and hopes that in pursuing

the lines of questioning that I have alluded to in the last few moments,

the government will understand the role that we need to play in ensuring

that, however laudable the ultimate objective, we as an assembly need to

ensure that we are doing this in a way that respects the rule of law and

does not have unintended consequences that have given rise to the

development of the legislation in the first place.

With that, thank you for the opportunity to address the chamber,

and I will certainly look forward to the exchange I’ll have with the

minister subsequently.

Hon. A. Dix: The member for Saanich North and the Islands is seeking to be

recognized, so maybe we’ll give him 30 seconds to make sure he gets

recognized in the debate. I may be wrong about that, but maybe if we

could just take a 30-second adjournment to allow him to be recognized,

and then we’ll go from there. Would that be all right?

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

[3:30 p.m.]

Hon. S. Malcolmson: I rise today in support of these very important amendments to the

Opioid Damages and Health Care Costs Recovery Act, known here as Bill

I’ll echo the words of the Health Minister and of the opposition

speaker just before me, as we are all thinking, as we debate a piece of

work like this, of the incalculable loss of lives across the province,

from every sector, every community, every demographic. It’s hard to find

a family in British Columbia that has not been touched in some way by

the loss of the toxic drug crisis, the overdose public health emergency.

Everything that we say in this debate and in this chamber is embraced

within the belief and the recognition that nothing we say here will

bring back the lives lost. This is a response, one of many responses, to

a tragedy in British Columbia.

Any family or friends listening, I want you to know that we are

with you. We are informed by what all of us in this chamber have heard

from families and loved ones. This is one step that looks back and is

always infused with what we’ve heard from families. We know this doesn’t

bring any lives back.

While much of the attention about response to the toxic drug

crisis has been focused on the effects of the highly poisonous and

unpredictable toxic illicit drug supply, we know that there is another

side: opioid manufacturers who were deceptive in their marketing

practices. The things that they did to increase demand for opioids

without regard to the consequences have had a devastating impact on

communities throughout our country and throughout our

province.

This spring, along with the former Attorney General and the next

Premier, I announced a proposed settlement of $150 million that

represented a significant step forward in holding those companies

accountable. It’s the largest health care settlement in Canadian

history. It’s the first of its kind, and British Columbia led the

country in holding opioid manufacturers and distributors accountable. We

led on behalf of all Canadian governments with the original legislation

in 2018. The expansion of that 2018 legislation represents what we’ve

learned so far, and the Health Minister has outlined this in

detail.

Nothing will replace the lives lost in our province, and we

continue to use every tool in the toolbox to turn the tide on this

terrible crisis. As a government and as a legislature, we are standing

up to national pharmaceutical companies. We’re advancing

decriminalization. We’re investing in new treatment beds and recovery

services. We’re expanding harm reduction measures like prescribed safe

supply and working every day to build out a system of care that prevents

the loss of life.

I really want…. I’m reminded that when, in 2018, this litigation

was first announced, the mayor of Nanaimo at the time, Bill McKay said:

“Of all the things, why would you do this? There is so much more that

can be done.”

[3:35 p.m.]

I’m always reminded of that conversation and that first instinct

from a local government leader, so that every time we talk about this,

we have to talk about the rest of the work that is being

done.

Having inherited a system in 2017 that didn’t knit together

responses to the toxic drug crisis, we’ve since been focusing on system

change. Unprecedented investments to build a full spectrum of care for

both adults and youth include new and enhanced withdrawal management

services. They include transition and assessment services. They include

treatment and recovery services and aftercare to make sure that what

people learn in treatment can be locked in and last forever.

Just last week I had the great pleasure, on a cold morning up at

Top of the World Ranch just near Fort Steele, just outside Cranbrook,

with Edgewood recovery services…. It is a for-profit treatment centre

that also has a facility in Nanaimo, so I’m well acquainted with the

service providers at Edgewood.

Along with representatives of the Ktunaxa First Nation, who

themselves operate or used to operate detox and treatment beds for

people within their First Nation, along with partners in Interior

Health, we walked through what is now known as a recovery ranch, seeing

the system of care that has been built together by a private operator.

But they are now partnering with Interior Health, and I was there to

announce ten publicly funded addiction treatment beds, just another

example of adding more services to prevent overdose and to treat

addiction.

We also announced, last year, 105 adult treatment and recovery

beds that we fund and that the Canadian Mental Health Association

manages and administers the contracts for. Since April 2021, more than

600 clients have been able to access those 105 beds. Altogether across

B.C., over 3,200 funded adult and youth community substance use

treatment beds are available for people throughout the

province.

Increasing bed-based services is just one of the ways that we’re

building out the system of care to prevent overdose in our province.

We’ve also added new outpatient withdrawal management services, new

virtual addiction medicine services and expanded medication-assisted

treatment where people can receive a prescription medicine to attend to

the withdrawal symptoms. For many people, this stabilizes them

tremendously. We have roughly 24,000 people across British Columbia who

have been accessing this treatment monthly since 2020.

We’re also leading the country on nurse prescribing. This is the

only place in the country where a registered nurse or registered

psychiatric nurse can write a prescription for a patient. The public

health order that enabled this allows them to prescribe the

medication-assisted treatment that I just mentioned. So 96 nurses have

completed the training to prescribe this medication-assisted treatment

and are out in the field prescribing, and another 95 are enrolled in the

training or else are right in training right now.

While we build out more treatment, we also have to make it

possible to connect more people to treatment. That was the rationale

behind decriminalizing people who use drugs in British Columbia, the

only place in Canada where this has been done. That’s because we all

agree, in this chamber, that addiction is a health care issue, not a

criminal justice one. Drug dealing is absolutely a criminal issue, but

someone that is addicted to drugs needs medication and treatment just as

much as someone who has diabetes or any other health care

challenge.

This is shown, in other countries that have already gone down this

path, to break down the shame and stigma that prevents people from

reaching out and looking for treatment support but also causes people to

use drugs alone. In this climate of drug toxicity, using drugs alone

often means dying alone. We’re working very closely with health

authorities, police and community partners for the implementation of

January 31.

[3:40 p.m.]

When this announcement of decriminalization was made, when the

federal government gave us the exemption that allowed it, I got a phone

call from Guy Felicella, who’s someone in Vancouver who himself has been

through incarceration, addiction, multiple overdoses, multiple attempts

at treatment. He said: “You just have to know what this is going to mean

for someone like me. I might not have survived my addiction, and

criminalizing me prevented me from getting into treatment. It almost

ended my life.” He was in jail for possession of just, really, a tiny

amount of drugs. I am grateful for his voice and the reminder of how

transformative this can be.

Never has there been so much investment in substance use treatment

and prevention of overdose. But the toxicity of the illicit drug supply

is challenging our efforts in every way. The concentration of fentanyl

in illicit drug deaths has increased significantly since the start of

the pandemic. In the first months of 2020, the coroner reported that

people who died of toxic drug overdose had concentrations of fentanyl of

between 4 percent and 8 percent. Now, in some months, the coroner

reports toxicity as high as 27 percent, and, over the last two years,

benzodiazepines, which suppress breathing and do not respond to Narcan.

Benzodiazepines detected in deaths has jumped from 15 percent to nearly

50 percent concentration.

To separate people from the toxic drug supply, we expanded access

to prescribed safe supply. Over 3,000 prescribers have helped nearly

14,000 people access prescribed safe supply since we launched our

program in March 2020, and we continue to work with health authorities

to expand the program. More and more people are being prescribed every

month.

We know that building that comprehensive and seamless system of

care includes early intervention and prevention. That’s why we’ve been

opening new Foundry locations across British Columbia. There are 13 open

now. There are another nine under construction — the ones that will open

soon. When I opened Foundry youth centres this year in both Comox Valley

and in Langley, it was so welcoming coming in the front door. These are

youth centres that have been designed for and by youth. But colours —

the furniture, the whole interface of how you walk into a place like

this is designed to make young people feel welcome.

They may be there for primary health care, for mental health

counselling, for help with addiction. They may be getting access to

birth control. Whatever it is, it’s within a framework of a welcoming

environment. What I hear from young people on the ground in places like

Langley and Comox Valley is that it has truly transformed their lives,

and they themselves often step into leadership in this place.

When I announced a new centre this summer in Fort St. John, there

were tears. Fort St. John is a place where I believe the average age is

32 years old. Can you believe that? It’s hard, in the North, to attract

health care providers. The loss of life to drug toxicity is endemic in

that community and in the industries that it supports. These are

life-saving pieces of investment.

These are just some of the examples of the ways that we are

tackling the public health emergency, using prevention, treatment, harm

reduction, education, and then, as is evidenced in the 2018 legislation

and in the amendments to the legislation that are here on the floor

today, Bill 34, litigation.

We are standing up new supports in unprecedented ways. We are

removing barriers to access to treatment in unprecedented ways, but we

are facing a rising tide of need. There is much more for us to do. We

are continuing to invest and expand in the supports that people need and

deserve, continuing to use every tool in the toolbox to save

lives.

I’m grateful for the people on the front line that are doing this

work. I’m grateful for the opportunity to speak in this

Legislature.

[S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.]

B. Anderson: The opiate crisis has impacted my community tremendously. The

first person that I ever knew that died because of opiates was Colin. He

was my brother’s childhood best friend, and he died alone, on his

birthday.

[3:45 p.m.]

I’m thinking about you today, Colin, but I’m also thinking about

all of the parents that have lost their children, all of the partners

that have lost their partners, all of the children that have lost

parents.

To my friend Janeen, I know that this was an incredibly hard year

for you. I am so grateful that we get to be up here today to hold these

companies accountable and bring Canada in on this lawsuit. Now, it will

never replace the lives that have been lost, but we can help get more

support for people that are facing addictions.

A few months ago when I was in the Legislature, I got a message

from my CA. A woman that I know — she was actually helping me stuff

Christmas cards at Christmastime — who is involved in street culture.

She’s often homeless. Right now she does have a home. She had an

overdose in our alley. So it was my CA who had to call 911 and,

thankfully, this woman, they were able to save her with

naloxone.

The ironic part about this was she actually did not intend to use

opiates that day. She was smoking weed from a contaminated pipe. Now, I

don’t want to get this confused with people thinking that cannabis is

laced with fentanyl, because that’s not the case. But there was a

contaminated pipe that she was sharing from a friend, and that’s what

caused her overdose.

We are so happy that you are still with us today. You’re a

wonderful member of our community, and when we’ve had problems in the

office, I remember you saying to my staff, “Don’t worry. If anything

happens, we’ve got your back,” and we have your back too. To everyone….

And I know everyone in my community has been touched by this crisis, so

we need to hold folks to account.

It is a tremendous honour today to be speaking in the Legislature,

and it’s a particularly special moment for me, because I have my friend

Rebecca Brohman, who’s sitting up there in the gallery. I’ve known her

since I was in grade five. We’ve been in grade five together. We moved

up to the Yukon together. She is one of my best friends, and she is also

a nurse prescriber for the OAT program.

She is working with people every day and helping people get

treatment for their addictions. I don’t think that there’s possibly a

more hard-working nurse in our system. She really cares for people, and

she will go the extra mile to make sure that people in rural areas have

treatment for their opiate addiction. This is absolutely what it is. It

is an addiction. It’s not a crime. These people need our support. They

deserve our help, and this lawsuit will help us get there and hold those

companies into account.

I also want to talk about some of the absolutely incredible

programs that we have in the Kootenays. Cheryl and your team at ANKORS:

you’re absolutely incredible. We are so fortunate that our community was

able to get a spectrometer, so if people have a substance that they’re

going to consume, they’re able to go get it tested. That spectrometer

moves around the community, and Shambhala was actually a huge part of

getting that into our community. During Shambhala, it goes up to

Shambhala so that people can get their drugs tested there.

They’ve been also leading festivals across North America on how to

keep people safe in the midst of an opiate crisis. I’m super grateful

for that entire team and the team at ANKORS for the work that they do in

our community each and every day.

Another group that I want to just do a huge shout-out to are the

street outreach team. We have Jer and Ryall, and they’re out there every

single day supporting people that face homelessness. They’re trying to

link them up with housing. We actually received naloxone training in our

office after the incident. I had done it actually with a restaurant

before. One of my friends owns a restaurant. These are business owners.

The entire community is trying to get trained up so that when an

incident happens, we’re able to respond and we’re able to protect our

community. But it shouldn’t have to be like that.

Jer and Ryall are out there every single day. And when we were

getting our naloxone training, Jer was telling us how unbelievably it

has changed over these last few years. He’s like: “When we thought we

were in the trenches ten years ago, we had no idea.” He was telling us

how things were happening so fast. He gave the guy one injection.

Nothing. Another injection. Nothing. And then he ended up breaking the

vial off to try to get more of the naloxone out on the wall because he

couldn’t flip it. So he was able to give that person, and he was able to

save lives.

[3:50 p.m.]

They are saving lives every single day in our community because of

the opiate crisis. So I just want to say thank you. I feel so grateful

for this team, the team at ANKORS and for everyone in our health care

system that is supporting treatment, that is supporting recovery, and to

all of the family members and friends and loved ones that have been

impacted or have a family member or a loved one that is facing addiction

right now. We want to be here to support you. These are members of our

community that are valuable. It’s such a complex crisis, but we need to

do everything that we can to keep people safe.

I would just like to thank both of the ministers — this bill is

both of theirs, in my opinion — for the work that they do, really, in

leading the province, because this is a terrible problem, and we have to

solve it.

B. D’Eith: I rise today to speak to Bill 34, the Opioid Damages and Health

Care Costs Recovery Act. I want to thank everyone who has spoken so

far.

We’re obviously dealing with two health care crises right now. One

is, of course, the pandemic that still continues — and the opioid crisis

that is taking so many lives away in our communities right across the

province, with the tainted drug supply. Our government has been working

diligently on this issue since we got in, because it’s clearly one of

the toughest health care issues that our communities are all

facing.

Part of the plan to move forward to really try to tackle this

really tough issue…. Bill 34 is part of the overall suite of matters

that the government has been dealing with over the last five years. This

particular bill will enable both the government of British Columbia and

wholesales and other potential defendants in the proposed class action

lawsuit that is actually currently happening.

What these amendments do is actually strengthen the act and ensure

that, in fact, directors and officers of corporate defendants may also

be held accountable. Then, in addition to that, there are another number

of clarifying acts which will help with the class action

suit.

It’s important to sometimes get behind the corporate veil. As a

lawyer, one of the things you learn