Second Session, 41st Parliament (2017)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, October 17, 2017
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 34
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
Routine Business |
|
Hon. J. Darcy |
|
Hon. D. Eby |
|
L. Throness |
|
B. Ma |
|
T. Wat |
|
L. Krog |
|
L. Reid |
|
J. Routledge |
|
R. Coleman |
|
Hon. J. Horgan |
|
J. Sturdy |
|
Hon. C. Trevena |
|
S. Furstenau |
|
Hon. J. Horgan |
|
J. Isaacs |
|
Hon. C. Trevena |
|
G. Kyllo |
|
Hon. M. Farnworth |
|
S. Bond |
|
Hon. J. Horgan |
|
T. Redies |
|
J. Thornthwaite |
|
Orders of the Day |
|
J. Rustad |
|
D. Barnett |
|
Hon. D. Donaldson |
|
S. Bond |
|
S. Thomson |
|
Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room |
|
Hon. J. Darcy |
|
J. Thornthwaite |
|
L. Throness |
|
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17, 2017
The House met at 10:04 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Tributes
BILL RADBOURNE
Hon. J. Darcy: I rise with great sadness today to share the news of the passing of a good friend and great community leader from New Westminster, whose name was Bill Radbourne and who passed away yesterday. He served with the New West fire department for 33 years, retiring as assistant chief.
An incredibly active member of our community, most recently training service dogs. Everywhere he was seen, including in visits to the Legislature, he had a service dog with him. President of his residents association. Active in the ancient, honourable Hyack Anvil Battery, a long-standing tradition in New Westminster. Head of the Hyack Festival Association. He was named Citizen of the Year a number of years ago. Most recently he was a big support to his wife, Lynn, in developing the youth ambassador program from New Westminster. Members may recall them visiting this House as part of their learning about civic engagement.
I had a very precious opportunity to visit him in the hospital, at Royal Columbian Hospital, on Sunday before he passed away on Monday. I would like to ask members of this House to join me in extending to his wife, Lynn, the love of his life, our deepest condolences — to Lynn, his family and a community that will miss him dearly.
Introductions by Members
G. Kyllo: We’re joined in the House today by a group of hard-working members of Advocis. We’re joined by Peter Tzanetakis, Andrew Kimber, Greg Pollock, Brad Brain, Mike Reilly, Steve Hammer, David Webb, Jared Webb and Rob Bauml. Advocis is the oldest and largest volunteer professional membership association of financial planners and advisers in Canada, with more than 12,000 members and 40 chapters advocating for professionalism and consumer protection. Would the House please make them feel very welcome.
J. Isaacs: I’d like to welcome to the House Daniel Fontaine, who’s the CEO of the B.C. Care Providers Association, and his colleague Mike Klassen, vice-president of communications and stakeholder relations. The B.C. Care Providers Association is celebrating its 40th anniversary today. It represents residential care, assisted-living and home care providers across the province. They are here to meet with representatives from all three caucuses to discuss how we can strengthen seniors care here in the province, something I know that they work tirelessly to advocate for.
Will everyone in the House please join me in congratulating them on their 40th anniversary and welcome our guests today.
Introduction and
First Reading of Bills
BILL 9 — MISCELLANEOUS STATUTES
(MINOR CORRECTIONS)
AMENDMENT ACT, 2017
Hon. D. Eby presented a message from Her Honour the Lieutenant-Governor: a bill intituled Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017.
Hon. D. Eby: I move that the bill be introduced and read a first time now.
I'm pleased to introduce the Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017. This bill is a collection of minor corrections and technical housekeeping amendments to various statutes. As part of the statute revision process, the office of legislative counsel routinely identifies and brings forward these types of corrections. The minor corrections in this bill are part of the routine process to ensure that B.C. statutes are orderly and correct.
Mr. Speaker: The question is first reading of the bill.
Motion approved.
Hon. D. Eby: I move the bill be placed on the orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Bill 9, Miscellaneous Statutes (Minor Corrections) Amendment Act, 2017, introduced, read a first time and ordered to be placed on orders of the day for second reading at the next sitting of the House after today.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
VISIONQUEST AND RESIDENTIAL
ADDICTION TREATMENT
SERVICES
L. Throness: This summer I attended the 20th anniversary celebration of VisionQuest in the Chilliwack River Valley. For two decades, VisionQuest staff and volunteers have offered long-term residential treatment to prolific offenders addicted to drugs and alcohol — men sent there, instead of to prison, by the courts. VQ is registered with the assisted living registry under the Ministry of Health, receiving a stipend of just under $31 per day, per client, to feed, house, pay staff and offer programming to 40 men at a time, men who would otherwise be wreaking havoc on Fraser Valley streets. VisionQuest struggles heroically to offer a significant public benefit at rock-bottom costs. In fact, it can barely afford to keep going.
There are 100 similar organizations on the assisted living registry. These non-profit societies operate on a shoestring, and they represent a golden opportunity to expand addictions treatment quickly, at minimal cost. To grow available spaces, the Minister of Health simply needs to provide more daily funding and help to create a professional association that will share best practices, set standards, conduct inspections and push out bad actors.
So far, the government has made positive noises about addictions treatment, but little tangible has been delivered. Perhaps this is because long-term residential treatment is very expensive, if we rely only on high-priced professionals already in short supply. But we already have a treatment system aided by hundreds of volunteers ready to give heart and soul to the betterment of their fellow British Columbians. Many more NGOs would come on board if they were invited, regulated and supported.
I call today upon the government to unleash the power of the non-profit sector by making better use of the assisted living registry to get thousands of addicted and often homeless people off the streets, off drugs and into long-term residential treatment, like that provided by VisionQuest in the Chilliwack River Valley.
SUTHERLAND SECONDARY SCHOOL
B. Ma: I had the privilege of visiting Sutherland Secondary School in North Vancouver last week, home of the Sabers. I met with administrators, staff and, best of all, approximately 90 grades 10, 11 and 12 students. According to the department head, I was the first MLA to come to talk to their students in at least 12 years. Another staff member insisted that I may have been the first MLA to visit their school in up to 25 years.
While it might have been new to them, the students asked questions like pros. In fact, I find the younger a person is, the harder the questions they ask. Kids really know how to make an MLA sweat. For nearly an hour, I was grilled on everything from housing affordability to the five-cent transit fare increase. These young people wanted to know that we were committed to fighting climate change and investing in harm reduction strategies when it came to drug addiction. They wanted us to work with teachers to ensure good-quality education for the future. They wanted to understand our commitment to a $15-an-hour minimum wage, and they wanted to know what politics was like in Canada.
It may have been my first visit to Sutherland, but I certainly do not intend for it to be my last. It is at our public schools that I am most struck by these words that Lebanese poet Kahlil Gibran wrote about children: “You may give them your love but not your thoughts, for they have their own thoughts. You may house their bodies but not their souls, for their souls dwell in the house of tomorrow, which you cannot visit, not even in your dreams…. You are the bows from which your children as living arrows are sent forth…upon the path of the infinite.”
Let us all be strong and sturdy bows, my colleagues, and may Sutherland students go swift and far.
KIN’S FARM MARKET
T. Wat: October is Small Business Month, a great time for us to reflect on a wonderful business that contributes so much to B.C.’s economy. I recently got the opportunity, in the city of Richmond, to help celebrate a business that started out small but has now successfully expanded throughout B.C., thanks to the hard work of the Kin family.
While Kin’s Farm Market started as an eight-foot-long produce table at Granville Island in 1982, its first bricks-and-mortar location was opened at Blundell Centre in Richmond in 1987. This is where the Kin family was able to provide a much larger variety of produce and services to customers and where the Kin’s Farm Market name started to reach the public. From that location in Richmond, they began to establish relationships with various farmers and suppliers so that they could offer consumers the highest-quality goods. Their Ladner store was opened in 1990 and became their new distribution centre. Two years later the store expanded into an enclosed mall.
In 1996, Kin’s head office was established in Richmond to accommodate the needs of the growing business. In 2000, Kin’s expanded to the Fraser Valley, and in 2004, it entered downtown Vancouver. In 2005, it launched its franchise program, and today Kin’s Farm Market boasts 29 corporate and franchise locations throughout British Columbia.
Congratulations to the Kin family on their 30th anniversary of doing business, and thank you for choosing Richmond to be the launching point for a very successful franchise.
TOM HARRIS
L. Krog: On July 22, close to 1,500 people gathered in Nanaimo’s conference centre to honour the life of Tom Harris. He was an incredibly successful businessman, but more importantly, he was a true community leader. To mourn his unexpected death at only 67, he leaves behind his mother, Evelyn; his wife, Christine; five children; and 12 grandchildren.
Everyone knew Tom Harris, and everyone respected Tom Harris. No one on Vancouver Island can help but smile and repeat the jingle: “If you’re looking for a car, go see Tom.” Amongst a multitude of positions he held, he was Telus’s largest dealer, past president of the New Car Dealers Association, past chair of the Nanaimo Hospital Foundation and United Way campaign chair. So many positions and so many charities he supported.
Unlike the infamous Robert Dunsmuir, whose business success in Nanaimo was marred by greed and horrible treatment of his workers, Tom’s amazing success was crowned by his outstanding generosity, especially in tough times when the community needed it most, and by the love his employees had for him. There was hardly a charity in Nanaimo that didn’t receive donations from Tom or his companies, including St. Paul’s Anglican Church.
Corporate Citizen of the Year. Appointed to the Order of St. John. His last recognition was a Lifetime Achievement Award from the New Car Dealers Association of B.C. in 2015.
Notwithstanding all his community work, he was a loving and devoted father to his family and husband to his wife. He loved people, and in turn, people loved him. His work and his life brought honour to his family and to his name in a life that was truly well lived. It was a life lived in the service of his community, his employees and his family.
ARTHRITIS
L. Reid: I rise today to talk about the impact of arthritis on British Columbians. There are over 100 kinds of arthritis, including gout, lupus and scleroderma, in addition to the more commonly recognized forms like osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Arthritis in its various forms is one of the major health challenges facing British Columbians and our health care system. More than 650,000 British Columbians live with this disease, including children, and there is no cure.
When one considers all their friends and family members, virtually every one of us is touched by arthritis in some manner. Arthritis doesn’t just affect individuals, families and our health system. It has a major impact on our economy as well. Arthritis does not just affect seniors. It impacts many people in the workforce. In fact, more than half, 52 percent, of British Columbians living with arthritis are between the ages of 15 and 65. Of those British Columbians of working age, more than one in four report they are not in the labour force because of a disability associated with their disease.
Arthritis can impact people’s abilities to participate in the workforce in other ways. It may require them to change their jobs or reduce their working hours, all of which can negatively impact their careers, their financial situation, their families and their economic contributions.
I want to say a special thanks to the researchers, to the caregivers and to the patients in British Columbia who continue to strive for a cure.
LIVING ROOM ART
EVENT IN BURNABY
HEIGHTS
J. Routledge: Last month I had the pleasure of attending an art exhibit in my community. It’s called Living Room Art in the Heights, and it’s held in a home in my neighbourhood. That’s right. One evening every year someone turns their house into an art gallery. Every room showcases a different local artist and a different artistic medium. Fabric art in the family room, ceramic art in the dining room, storytelling and live music in the living room. On every wall, beautiful watercolours, acrylics and photography. Isn’t it inspiring that this family opened their home to hundreds of strangers to share and experience art? And it’s not the first time.
Living Room Art has been hosted in a different home every year since 2014. It was started by local artists — in particular, Yunuen Perez Vertti. In this age, when so many people are cutting themselves off from their neighbours in gated communities, on locked-off floors in their highrises and behind video surveillance on their front porches, Living Room Art shows such a faith in humanity and in the unifying power of human creativity.
Let me conclude by thanking the artists and the residents of Burnaby Heights who come together to bring art into the heart of our community and, by doing so, foster a love of art among a diverse population, many of whom may not ordinarily go to museums and art galleries. But it also fosters something else that’s just as important. It contributes a sense of mutual trust and connectedness that, in turn, makes all of us safer in our communities.
Oral Questions
REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING
AND TAXI
INDUSTRIES
R. Coleman: This is a government of broken promises, of delays, reviews, dragging their feet. It’s a government, actually, in gridlock.
Yesterday another promise broken, another delay, another review, having a minister that didn’t even read the report in Vancouver prior to actually hiring somebody to write a report with regards to ride-share — another review so that this Premier doesn’t have to make a decision. I think he’s afraid.
The Premier has broken his promises on ride-sharing, he’s broken his promise on taxpayer-funded political parties, and many more. How can British Columbians trust a Premier who breaks promise after promise after promise, just so he can cling to power?
It’s a government in neutral….
Interjections.
R. Coleman: They don’t like to hear this. It’s a government in neutral that’s failing to make a decision.
I want to ask the Premier again: why, one more time, did you break another promise yesterday?
Hon. J. Horgan: Another one of those wild moments from the new opposition.
I want to thank the member for his question, and I want to remind him that the people who are sitting on that side of the House knew for five years that ride-sharing was coming to British Columbia, and for five years they kept booting the ball down the field until just before the election. Just before the election, they said: “Look, we’ve got a solution.” And the solution led to more of us on this side of the House than them on that side of the House.
I make no apologies to the now Leader of the Opposition…
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: …for wanting to get ride-sharing….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the response.
Hon. J. Horgan: I make no apologies to the hon. member on the other side for wanting to get it right rather than wanting to get it done for political reasons, which is why you had a bogus consultation in March that led to a blank slate for us to fill in.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
R. Coleman: I actually have friends who drive taxis that I know very well, and they’re concerned about the certainty about their job. They want to know there’s a level playing field for insurance and licensing and criminal record checks and those things — all those things we promised to do when we ran in the last provincial election.
We also didn’t make the promise that we’d have it in place by the end of 2017. You said you would. Now you’ve changed your mind. You go hide behind the review, saying: “Well, I didn’t really mean what I said when I ran. I really haven’t meant anything of what I said as a leader of the NDP party during an election, because I keep shutting it down. I keep delaying, obfuscating and breaking my promises.” That’s what the Premier is doing. I think he is afraid of making a decision. He’s afraid to make the tough decisions — only the easy ones.
So why, just tell me why. Why, other than the fact you want to hide from actually making a decision, are you once more just doing a review to delay, delay, delay actually making a decision as the Premier of the province of British Columbia?
Hon. J. Horgan: It’s interesting, again, hearing the now Leader of the Opposition — and I do relish saying that — talk about changing narratives after an election campaign.
I want to quote from a speech that was read in this House when that side of the House was in government.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, Members.
Hon. J. Horgan: This is what the throne speech said. These were the words of those on that side of the House. “While all parties in this Legislature publicly stated their support for ride-sharing in the recent election, your government” — that being those guys — “has heard the message that legitimate implementation concerns remain. Any proposed legislation will be referred to an all-party committee for extensive consultation” and public stakeholder relationships.
When we came to government in the middle of the summer, we were committed to bringing in ride-sharing, on the assumption that they had done something in five years. As it turned out, they hadn’t.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
R. Coleman: Now the tact is: “I’m going to go into a corner and whine about the fact somebody said something different about something because I don’t want to admit that I’m breaking a promise.”
This is your province, Mr. Premier. You’re the one in charge today. You’re the one that made the commitment to the province of British Columbia. You want to go hide around somebody else’s words? That just shows one more piece of lack of leadership for you, in your position, to not be able to make a decision.
When are you going to stop breaking promises to the people of British Columbia?
Hon. J. Horgan: Well, I know that there’s not unanimity on that side of the House. I know that the member for Kamloops–South Thompson had great difficulty with this file because he did nothing with it for 2½ years.
I’m delighted to hear that the Leader of the Official Opposition has a friend who drives a taxi. But I’m more encouraged by the thoughtfulness of the member for Vancouver-Langara, who as recently as two days ago, said the following: “Our party rushed too quickly to welcome Uber to British Columbia. We need to develop a road map to get this improved service for customers and maintain passenger safety, treats everyone fairly and creates a level playing field.”
Hon. Speaker, through you to the gentleman with a friend on the other side: I’ll take advice from him once they get their act together.
J. Sturdy: As we know, yesterday it was confirmed that the NDP were going to do yet another review before even considering ride-sharing for British Columbians — more delay, more taxpayer dollars.
The terms of reference for Mr. Hara’s ride-sharing report are specific: you must consult with taxi associations, municipalities, First Nations, the airport operators, and the list does go on. What is glaring, however, is the exclusion of some important groups: the public, Mothers Against Drunk Driving and — oh, incredibly — the ride-sharing industry itself. Evidently, these groups have nothing to add.
My question of the Minister of Transportation, and I believe it to be a reasonable question: how can government possibly devise a strategy to bring ride-sharing to British Columbia without consulting the very companies that have experience providing these services around the world?
Hon. C. Trevena: That side of the House, in government, had five years to deal with ride-share — to talk to the companies, to talk to taxis and come up with a solution. What we have instead was a plan just before the last election which the taxi industry said would devastate it. It would be destructive. What we want to be is constructive….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister, please take your seat.
It’s impossible to hear the Minister’s response.
Minister, proceed.
Hon. C. Trevena: We want to be constructive and come up with a solution that works for B.C., for the very complex situation that we have in B.C. that includes everyone and deals with a problem that people know we have.
Mr. Speaker: The member for West Vancouver–Sea to Sky on a second supplemental.
J. Sturdy: You would consider that any credible review would encompass all interests. To act otherwise, one must consider some ulterior motives.
The minister’s own mandate letter says she’s to work with taxi drivers, taxi companies and ride-sharing companies. The minister has had years and years of experience as the Transportation critic, and the government has had ample opportunity to come up with a plan, yet they drag their feet and dither and delay. Yes, it’s true. Few believe the minister or the Premier. It is difficult to trust this government when there is yet another very clear, very concise campaign promise broken.
My question to the minister: is the outcome of this expensive delay review already a foregone conclusion?
Hon. C. Trevena: The foregone conclusion is that we want to hear what Dr. Hara has to say on the taxi industry, that we are going to hear….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
Hon. C. Trevena: Obviously, opposition members don’t want to hear what I have to say, but we are going to hear….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Minister.
Hon. C. Trevena: We’re going to see what comes from the review. We are going to be talking to the ride-share companies, and we’re going to be talking to others to make sure that we get the best solution for British Columbia — not a short-term situation that that government tried to do just before the last election, which was politically motivated. We want to get public policy in place first.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members, I hope I don’t have to say this again. It is outrageously rude to be talking when somebody is standing and speaking.
PROTECTION OF WILD SALMON
AND STATUS OF FISH
FARMS
S. Furstenau: Wild salmon are tremendously important to coastal and northern communities. As the mayor of Smithers states: “It’s a wild salmon economy here.” The Skeena River alone generates up to $110 million per year, while sports fishing in B.C. produced revenues of $925 million, contributing $325 million to B.C.’s GDP and 8,400 direct jobs.
In a 2013 article, the MLA from Stikine Valley, now the Minister of Ministry of Forests, Lands, Natural Resource Operations and Rural Development, was quoted, saying: “Wild salmon habitat deserves local, regional, provincial, national and global protection, because there is nothing like it remaining in the world.”
My question is to the Premier. Saving B.C.’s wild salmon will require a massive investment in habitat restoration. Is your government prepared to make this investment, particularly given the crucial role that wild salmon plays in B.C.’s economy?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. We had some questions yesterday around salmon in British Columbia, and I’m delighted to focus on wild salmon, wild Pacific salmon, which are the lifeblood of many communities, as the member said.
In my own community of Langford–Juan de Fuca, fishing in Sooke and Port Renfrew is the vital part of the economy that we see, certainly during the summer. I had the good fortune of being on the San Juan River with the Pacheedaht First Nation to observe their food fishery not seven days ago. The power of salmon is in all of us, and I think that every member of this House would agree.
With respect to the question about salmon restoration, certainly, upstream is the responsibility of the provincial government. We need to make sure that we are rehabilitating streams after logging practices — some good, some bad. But we also have to make sure we’re working with partners.
The member for Skeena raised some questions yesterday with respect to Indigenous people and what their relationship is with salmon. We need to make sure the federal government is at the table with dollars, to make sure they’re meeting their obligations as well.
I’d also say that I think all members, if you’re not aware of the important salmon enhancement work that’s being done up and down the coast to bring more salmon into play not just for food fishery, not just for commercial and sport fisheries but for orcas and other mammals that depend on the salmon…. I think that we can all do well, when the estimates for the member for Stikine and the minister responsible for Agriculture come up, to embrace and support the notion of salmon enhancement and making sure that we’re doing restoration in our streambeds.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Cowichan Valley on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: In 2009, the Fraser River sockeye return was so low, it was regarded as a catastrophic collapse. The Cohen Commission of Inquiry into the Decline of Sockeye Salmon in the Fraser River was launched, and three years later it produced 75 recommendations on how we could restore and protect wild salmon. At the time, Justice Cohen stated: “Salmon farms should not be permitted to operate unless it is clear they pose no more than a minimal risk to the Fraser River sockeye salmon.”
This year the Fraser River sockeye are returning at nearly the same catastrophically low levels as in 2009. We are in an emergency.
My question is to the Premier. I appreciate you recognizing the need to work with the federal government. Will the Premier meet with Prime Minister Trudeau to actively advocate for B.C.’s wild salmon and establish a coordinated provincial-federal strategy to responsibly phase out open-net fish farms on migratory routes?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member again for her question.
The Minister of Agriculture met with the Minister of Fisheries just last week to raise the issues of open-net-pen fish farms on migratory routes, which is counter to the recommendations of Cohen. Cohen has been endorsed, I believe, by the members on the other side as well as the current federal government and the government of the day here in British Columbia. It’s my view that we need to make sure that we’re working with all of the stakeholders, as articulated by the member for Skeena yesterday.
This issue didn’t arrive yesterday. The member has given us a historical note back to 2009 and the beginning of the Cohen investigation. But we’ve had challenges with wild fish and the integration with Atlantics — invasive species, in the minds of some — for some 25, 30 years.
This issue will not solved be overnight. But I commit to this member and all members of this House and all British Columbians that wild salmon are paramount on this side and, I believe, throughout this Legislature. I’m going to do my level best to work with every level of government and all Indigenous people to protect wild salmon.
REVIEW OF RIDE-SHARING
AND TAXI
INDUSTRIES
J. Isaacs: The Minister of Transportation announced yesterday that instead of keeping her promise, she hired an expensive consultant to do the work. How expensive? It was $165,000. Interestingly, that same consultant has already done a report on this very issue. And guess who did that report? The city of Vancouver and the then lead councillor on the issue, Geoff Meggs, who has since become the Premier’s chief of staff.
That begs the question: did she order the review, or was she directed by the Premier’s office because they knew what the answer was?
Hon. C. Trevena: I asked for the review.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Coquitlam–Burke Mountain on a supplemental.
J. Isaacs: Well, I’m having a hard time understanding, if the government was already familiar with the consultant’s report, why did they not simply take that report and all the other reviews that have been done and make some decisions. Or if that wasn’t the case, if they thought the original report was flawed, why hire the same consultant for a second round? The minister has admitted that she didn’t even read the consultant’s report, which was only 32 pages.
To the minister: is this incompetence, or is this report simply an expensive way to delay further and avoid any accountability?
Hon. C. Trevena: I think the member opposite may be geographically challenged. The review that was done previously was done for Vancouver. I’m the Minister of Transportation for the whole province of British Columbia, not the city of Vancouver. The work that will be done will be done in the interest of the people of British Columbia.
ASSISTANCE FOR VICTIMS OF
TAPPEN
LANDSLIDE
G. Kyllo: One of the proudest moments of my life was bringing my newborn daughter home for the very first time. Now, my constituents Ian and Rachel Sudbury were also looking forward to bringing their first child to their new home. Their baby, Sloane, was just born two weeks ago, but unfortunately, their house was destroyed in a debris flow earlier this May.
It is now October, and disaster financial assistance will not pay the money that everyone agrees they are owed. I spoke to the Minister of Forests four weeks ago about this case. He said he was on it. Nothing has happened. So I raised the situation here in this House two weeks ago. Still, the Sudburys have not received a penny of support from this government. This is beyond ridiculous.
My question to the minister is very simple: when will Rachel and Ian get the support they are owed?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I can tell the hon. member that the issue is being worked on expeditiously by emergency management British Columbia, by the government, to address the issues in this very, very heart-wrenching situation. I can give the member specific details, particularly around the work that needed to be done before any decision in terms of how to proceed forward has taken place.
On September 27, the geotechnical report was received by the Sudbury family and the Columbia-Shuswap regional district and forwarded to DFA. That report was required by the Columbia-Shuswap regional district before any further action could take place. The estimator for the DFA contacted the Sudbury family on September 30, after receipt of the geotechnical report. The engineer’s final inspection of the home and property was completed on October 12 of this year to ensure that emergency management B.C. has a full understanding of the damages caused by the event. The field evaluator’s report is expected to be delivered to EMBC on Monday, which it has been. EMBC will review the field evaluator’s report upon receipt and will contact the Sudbury family to discuss the next steps.
They are working on this as expeditiously as they can to ensure that the Sudbury’s situation is dealt with.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Shuswap on a supplemental.
G. Kyllo: Well, this is cold comfort to the Sudburys. They’ve been out of their home for over five months. They’re continuing to make mortgage payments on a house that has been destroyed. They have not received a penny from this government. This government has known for months now that they have not been paid. They need financial assistance.
What the member mentioned as far as the engineer, this only happened on Friday. For over a month now, the minister has been aware of this issue. There is no requirement, to my understanding, that the actual Westrek report was required for any of this further work to be undertaken.
There’s no question that the Sudburys are due the funding. Whether the house is deemed to be inhabitable or whether they can have the order to actually rebuild makes no difference. The disaster that has actually affected their home is more than the maximum value that’s payable under the DFA.
I do not see and do not understand why this government continues to delay. Please, will the minister commit to going to his office and ensuring that DFA issue the cheque to the Sudburys so that they can move on with their life?
Hon. M. Farnworth: The member raised this question in the House. We assured him at that time that we would get on to the issue to find out what delay has been taking place. I have just enumerated the actions that have been taking place and how quickly they’ve been taking place, including the dates of when that’s happened. The ministry will be in touch with the family. They are working diligently, doing the due process that needs to take place, in order to bring a resolution to this very tragic situation.
I’d also like to remind the member, when he is saying how long it has taken, of Johnsons Landing, where it took that government more than five years to finally address the water situation in that community, which suffered a similar situation to this tragic case.
B.C. NDP GOVERNMENT TRANSITION
TEAM AND PREMIER’S
OFFICE STAFFING
S. Bond: Recently British Columbians learned that the NDP-Green coalition needed a secretariat to manage their relationship rather than relying on their, I’m sure most of us would agree, competent House Leader, as has been the practice in the past. The price tag to manage a purely political relationship: almost $1 million over four years.
Today we discovered that not only are they using taxpayer dollars to manage political relationships; they also apparently needed some pretty expensive help to manage their transition to government. There’s a long list of lucrative contracts handed out by the Premier to his longtime NDP friends and supporters to work “as a member of a transition team appointed by the Premier-designate,” and it goes on to name the Premier.
To the Premier: how can he justify forking over more than half a million dollars to his friends and supporters for less than three weeks of work last summer?
Hon. J. Horgan: I thank the member for her question. She may well remember 16 years ago, when the government last changed, that there was a transition process. There was a transition process, where people that are working with the government to make the change from one to the other come into place. This is standard procedure. Nothing to see here.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: Well, the Premier might like to think there’s nothing to see here. Let’s take a little closer look at the list anyway. To qualify for a contract, apparently it helps to be former B.C NDP provincial secretary Keith Reynolds. He was offered one of the multiple direct-award $25,000 contracts for 17 days of work — 17 days. Nice work if you can get it.
If you look at the list, contracts were to begin July 4 and end July 21. But that’s not all. The biggest contract awarded was in excess of $36,000 for just three weeks — expensive contracts for political friends. Hundreds of thousands of dollars for a partisan secretariat, and the biggest surprise for taxpayers? They’re now funding elections.
To the Premier: in the absence of any concrete jobs plan — we certainly haven’t seen one — is rewarding his friends with contracts and salaries the NDP version of a jobs plan?
Hon. J. Horgan: I think for those watching today in the galleries and those watching at home that they’ll understand why you need to have a transition from one hostile group to a new group.
We’ve had nothing but support from those on the other side. We’ve had nothing but goodwill and best wishes from the B.C. Liberals as we try to clean up the mess that they left for British Columbians after 16 years.
T. Redies: I’d like to spend just a few minutes on who did benefit from the Premier’s summer works program. Now, we know that the Premier has some close ties with Vision Vancouver, so we shouldn’t be surprised that a few of his Vision friends benefited from taxpayer-funded contracts — people like Neil Moncton, David Perry and Tom Gunton.
But here’s the really interesting part. Documents tell us that both Mira Oreck and Geoff Meggs were on contract until July 21, but on July 18, the Premier’s office hired some staff. Guess who got those ongoing jobs? Why, Mira Oreck and Geoff Meggs, who were given respective salaries of $120,000 and $195,000.
To the Premier, were Mira Oreck and Geoff Meggs collecting money from the original transition team contracts and at the same time receiving a salary from the Premier’s office, and does he think that’s appropriate?
Hon. J. Horgan: The answer is no to the latter question. And to the broader theme, there were no compensation increases for any staff that were hired. The people that took the positions that used to be occupied by B.C. Liberals are being paid the same today as they were six months ago.
[End of question period.]
Point of Privilege
(Reservation of Right)
J. Thornthwaite: A point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The statement that was made by the member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale had some incorrect statements with regards to MLAs visiting Sutherland Secondary in the past. I’d like to put that on the record.
Mr. Speaker: Are you reserving your right?
The member for North Vancouver–Lonsdale.
B. Ma: I request leave to make an introduction.
Leave granted.
Introductions by Members
B. Ma: I failed to notice earlier that several members of the Capilano University student union are with us here in the gallery today, representing over 8,000 North Shore university students. It is an honour to have them here with us, and I really hope that our question period did not scare them away. Please join me in helping make them feel very welcome and encourage them to return.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call continued estimates on Forests, Lands, Natural Resources. In Committee A, I call continued estimates, Ministry of Health and Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions.
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF FORESTS,
LANDS,
NATURAL RESOURCE OPERATIONS
AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section B); R. Chouhan in the chair.
The committee met at 10:57 a.m.
On Vote 28: ministry operations, $459,150,000 (continued).
J. Rustad: This morning we’ll be exploring the rural development side, so we’ll pass it over to the critic from Cariboo-Chilcotin. There will be others that will join in over the course of the morning.
D. Barnett: Through you, Mr. Chair, to the minister: first of all, Minister, I would like to welcome your staff, who have worked so hard over the past few years on rural economic development. I had the pleasure of working with them and putting together a rural economic development strategy — a first for British Columbia, I believe.
My question to the minister is: will your ministry be carrying on with the economic development strategy that the past provincial government put together?
Hon. D. Donaldson: I thank the member for welcoming the staff, and I’ll introduce who we have again here today. There’s Deputy Minister Tim Sheldan, Assistant Deputy Minister Trish Dohan, Assistant Deputy Minister Dave Peterson, Assistant Deputy Minister Rick Manwaring and Assistant Deputy Minister Mary Sue Maloughney.
Rural development is a topic that’s very dear to my heart, because I live in communities that for a long time have witnessed not just high unemployment but also a decrease in services over the years. I want to acknowledge the work that was done by staff under the previous rural development strategy. We’ll be building on that framework and broadening it out.
My approach is to take a balance between the attract-and-retain strategies and digging deeper into the local economies strategy. That’s the recognition that economic development and social development are closely linked and that there can’t be true robust economic development without paying attention to the social development side as well. The approach we’ll be taking, in building upon the rural development strategy that was worked on by staff in the last few years, is an approach of community economic development.
Community economic development principles are many, but I can just mention five of them. They’re based on self-reliance, meaning an increase of economic independence for communities. They’re community-based, meaning facilitating community control on rural development. They’re based on sustainability, making communities resilient for the long term. They’re based on an asset base, which means taking the resources and the talents and the abilities of the communities and people in those communities and building on those for the long term. Very importantly, it’s the principle of participatory participation — that everyone in the communities deserves a voice in rural development strategies, not just a few.
D. Barnett: Thank you to the minister for the answer.
The rural advisory council was from across the province of British Columbia. It was made up of First Nations. It was made up of citizens. It was made up of economic development officers, industry, local governments. It was from across the province of British Columbia — not just communities, not just municipalities but people in total rural areas. This was a benefit to everyone.
In particular, if you look at the jobs that were created through this project, as I understand from the answer of the minister, you will not be carrying forward with this rural economic strategy. It will become a level of government, not one where there’s input from all walks of life.
So the answer is no, we will go back to a high-level regional economic strategy, and those organizations out there that do good work will not have an avenue for funding.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Perhaps the member didn’t understand or hear my last answer, where I outlined the five community economic development principles that we’ll be moving forward with in order to unite the economic approach with the social approach. The one I emphasized was participatory — that every voice deserves to be heard in communities around economic development, not just a few. It is asset-based. It is sustainable. It is community-based and self-reliant.
Those are the principles. I don’t know how I can be more clear about the principles that relate to making sure that everyone has a voice. The member mentioned strategy around all walks of life being included. Those are the principles of community economic development.
D. Barnett: So the answer is still no, we are not carrying on with the same process that we have been doing for the past while and putting together this rural economic strategy with all walks of life from British Columbia. To the minister: the answer is no, we are not going to carry on with this strategy.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the rural development strategy that we’re building on is going to be more in-depth and more broad than the last one.
I want to point out to the member that rural areas have witnessed and experienced and lived through a higher unemployment rate than urban areas as a result of the last 16 years of policies, and a decrease in services. That’s not the kind of rural development strategy we’re interested in promoting.
We’re interested in promoting a rural development strategy that, as I said, is participatory so that people are having a voice, and those most affected are having a voice. It is community-based, is asset-based, is sustainable and is self-reliant. That’s the kind of strategy that we’re going to be implementing.
As far as what’s happened in the past, there was a program introduced in the last couple of years by the former government. Those kind of programs always need review for tweaking. We’ve been distributing the results of the third round from the rural dividend program. So we’re carrying on, and we’re looking at ways to improve.
I’m sure the member would agree that it’s always good to have eyes and monitor and assess how programs are working, and if they’re working to the standards and to the goals that a government has. Our goals, of course, include a broader aspect than the previous government’s involving all members of the community, as well as our commitment to First Nations on a government-to-government basis, and that’s how we’ll be proceeding.
D. Barnett: I would like to turn the speaking over to my colleague from Prince George–Valemount.
S. Bond: Thank you to the minister for the time and for the staff.
I want to begin by just reflecting on a comment that he made. I know that estimates are an arduous process, and they’re long. While the member complimented the staff for the work that they had done, I think that’s certainly warranted. Having been a long-term minister in Victoria, I recognize the excellence of the public service. But make no mistake about it, Minister. Leadership is required by ministers and by members as well.
If there is anyone in this Legislature at the moment who provided leadership on the rural economic development file, it would be the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin and the rural advisory council that was created.
I think it is important to reflect that staff certainly does do an important job, but at the end of the day, it is about making the determination about where something is going to go, how it’s going to work and who’s going to drive that agenda. I want to give a lot of credit to my colleague for her unbelievable passion on the whole issue of rural economic development. Staff participated, absolutely did a great job, but it was driven, and the leadership was provided.
So just a straight up question to the minister. I take it, then, that the B.C. rural advisory council will be disbanded.
Hon. D. Donaldson: The rural development strategy that we’re developing now is, as I said, more in depth and more broad than the previous strategy. It’s going to include both economic and social, and the five principles of community economic development are going to be at its core. We’re going to require an advisory group that lines up with that broader mandate, and we’ll be contemplating that role for the advisory group.
S. Bond: I can only express my disappointment and, I’m sure, that of many other British Columbians, when people were chosen for their expertise in their regions — be it Vanderhoof, Armstrong, Port McNeill, McBride. We’re simply now going to replace an advisory council that did exceptional work and talked to people in their communities.
The minister talks about the need for consultation and understanding people’s voices. That’s exactly what an advisory council does. It listens to the people that it represents, and in fact, much of the work that drove the rural economic development strategy actually came from the rural advisory council — so obviously a very disappointing response. I would hope the minister would reconsider that and look at the exceptional people that are on that board. It’s not about being partisan. It’s about that they are exceptional leaders in their own right across a vast swath of British Columbia.
I heard the minister talk a little bit about the rural dividend fund. He said that it may be reviewed or tweaked. Can we take it…? I attended many meetings and much appreciated the opportunity to attend with my communities at the Union of B.C. Municipalities. The minister heard about the rural dividend fund, at least in every meeting I was at, and probably every single one where there was a rural community.
Can the minister, then, confirm today that the rural dividend fund will continue? It may well be tweaked, but that the general principles of supporting communities, that there would be a rigorous application process…. Can he confirm today that the rural dividend fund will continue?
Hon. D. Donaldson: As the member alluded to, the third intake of the rural dividend program was in May and then the long period of caretaker government, resulting in the announcements just last week of $11 million in funding awarded to successful applicants.
I definitely heard, through over 60 meetings at the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual conference, from communities around what they felt were the positive aspects of the rural dividend fund. I also heard some criticisms.
I can agree with the member around the general principles and a rigorous application process, and that’s what we want to work on into the future. The rural dividend program…. We have a broader strategy for rural development. The rural dividend type of program will be part of that, and we’ll be further consulting with advisory bodies to determine how broad and how the rural dividend program can be improved.
S. Bond: Well, I’m concerned when I hear the words “broadening the categories.” Rural economic development is a pretty focused task, particularly for small and rural and remote communities. Obviously, we’ll be very interested in the discussion.
Again, I’m just going to have a few more questions on this area, and then I’m going to go on to something more specific. But I do want to ask: what will the budget for the rural dividend fund be?
Hon. D. Donaldson: As the member knows, the rural dividend fund per year, up to year 2019-20 in these budget estimates, is $25 million.
S. Bond: I guess just to close off my comments…. There are many more, but I have other colleagues who want to participate. I think when good work is done by British Columbians, particularly those who live in their communities and every day face the struggles of how to diversify, strengthen and grow an economy in rural British Columbia, they don’t have time to wait for another whole process to begin.
The rural economic development strategy was developed with rural British Columbians and led by a very competent group of people. I would urge the minister to think about building on what has been provided and done rather than: we need to put a particular stamp on the work that moves forward.
This isn’t about partisan politics. This is about rural British Columbia. Where I live, people don’t have time to wait for government to talk about another study, another consultation, another report. They want us to get on with finding ways to help them survive in their communities.
On that note, I believe that the minister now has in his ministry a team that I was very privileged to work with, the economic development group that worked in regions across British Columbia. Can the minister confirm that the team that originally was working in the Jobs Ministry under the previous government is now contained in his ministry? And how are they being linked to communities across the province?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Yes, the economic development group that the member referenced has now moved entirely over into the ministry that I’m the minister of.
Before I go onto that answer, though, I just want to make it clear that the people in B.C. in rural areas aren’t going to be waiting for anything, as the member alluded to. What this is about is building on what is there and making it better. We’re not tearing something down just because it was created by somebody else. That’s not the style I employ.
The style that I employ is to look at whether the organization and the structure and the strategy is fulfilling what the goals are and then making sure that it is and building from there. It’s a building process, and nobody is sitting on their hands in the ministries or waiting for a different process. We’re moving forward.
A good example of that is on connectivity across rural areas, an important issue and something that communities have brought up and something that was highlighted under the rural strategy and under the rural dividend program. We’re still moving forward with that.
As far as how the current group moved into this ministry is undertaking their work…. Well, we’ve reorganized the ministry. We now have an ADM who is in charge of rural development, lands and innovation. So really, those people who were doing economic development, the regional economic officers, are actually benefiting from being more closely connected with people in a ministry who are doing some of the implementation of those programs. What we’re looking at is better integration.
S. Bond: I’m encouraged by the minister’s comments about building. I think that that will reassure some rural British Columbians who certainly don’t have time for us to be sorting out who’s doing what.
I appreciate the realignment. I think that there probably is some synergy there. I want to be sure that…. One of the major roles of that team was that in times of economic distress — catastrophic circumstances, mill closures, those kinds of things — that team was and is exceptional on the ground. We basically considered them the front line. They were the SWAT element, so to speak, of the ministry, and I had received nothing but positive commentary about the work of that group of people. They are connected on the ground. They know the communities that they are working in.
Can the minister assure me that that aspect of their job and their ability to work on the ground in those communities is being retained?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the short answer is yes. Definitely in times of, as the member typified it, economic distress, the transition team is still in place. They are working closely with the regional operations staff, so it’s even better integrated in that aspect. A good example of economic distress is what’s happened with the wildfires and the communities that are impacted by that. Also, taking a proactive role. You know you can’t anticipate natural disasters, but as far as taking a proactive role to increase resiliency in communities, a lot of the projects do that so that when there is the unanticipated economic distress, then communities are better positioned to deal with it.
S. Bond: I appreciate that answer. I think that, as I’ve said, they do an excellent job. Sadly, I think that there are going to be times we’re going to need them.
The critic has been very generous with her time. I’m going to end with just putting two things on the record. I certainly will set up a meeting with the minister to talk more directly about them. One of them, of course, is the situation in McBride. No one in this House will be surprised that I bring forward constituency issues on a regular basis and with a fair degree of vigour.
McBride, as the minister well knows, lost a mill in a devastating fire. Thirty jobs were lost in a community of probably a population of just over 500 people — more in the region, of course. We set up a team to work at that time, as we would with a transition issue anywhere in British Columbia, to support the community, the village of McBride.
I would like just assurance from the minister that that support remains in place, that we continue to look for ways to grow and diversify the economy.
I want to thank the FLNRO team in Prince George and the region for being so helpful in trying to find a fibre supply so that we can actually rebuild a mill. It is absolutely essential that we see some sort of progress. I would just like reassurance that the team will remain around there. Again, I know the deputy will pass on our thanks. Some really creative thinking is going on there, and that’s going to be necessary.
The last comment is about Valemount and Valemount Glacier development, the resorts branch. We went through an arduous process to bring us to a place where we could see the kind of progress that we’ve seen with Valemount Glacier. It is a chance for a rural community to diversify and grow its economy in an unprecedented way.
I would just, again, like assurance that the ministry is keeping an eye on that file and making sure that it continues to move forward because, in the case of McBride and Valemount, both of them have enormous opportunities in front of them. But they require that ongoing support. I thank the minister for his time.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for highlighting two communities that I visit on occasion. I appreciate those communities and, to a large extent, the beautiful area surrounding them. It’s just spectacular.
I met with McBride council during the Union of B.C. Municipalities’ AGM, along with their community forester. Yes, the support team is still in place there and are working with McBride. The district manager has been meeting with him regularly to come up with volume ideas, especially from the community forest. But we know that the current mill owner is interested in reinvesting. I think those are really good opportunities because they’re solid opportunities. They’re pre-existing and could be brought into production probably more quickly than some absolutely new venture.
Valemount. It was interesting to me. As a new minister, I was aware of many aspects of the ministry, but one that I hadn’t familiarized myself with was in master development agreements around mountain resorts. It was something new. We’re definitely still involved with that one. I know the area, and I know the potential as far as the kind of resort that they’re anticipating. On the First Nations side, the consultation has been very deep on that.
I look forward to being able to make more announcements on the Valemount project.
D. Barnett: Thank you to my colleague for her questions.
Will there be a fourth intake of the rural development fund moving forward?
Hon. D. Donaldson: There will definitely be a fourth distribution of the rural dividend funds that are remaining for the fiscal year. Given the nature of the natural disasters that we’ve had this year, that requires a revisiting of the criteria and how those funds will be distributed.
D. Barnett: So the priority, I understand, for the balance of the funds will be for those affected by floods and by wildfire.
Is the rural dividend fund now going to be utilized for recovery funding from wildfires and flooding, or is there going to be a separate account within your budget for these items?
I find that rural economic development must carry on. To take the funds from rural economic development that have been set aside and now put them into a disaster fund is, in my opinion, shortchanging our rural communities that have made plans to utilize the rural dividend now and in the future.
Does the minister intend to take the balance of the funds and use it for disasters, or will rural economic development, as it has been seen, carry on?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the remaining rural dividend funds that will be distributed are not a disaster fund. I want to assure the member that that’s not how we’re going to typify it. It’s not directly associated as a disaster fund or a recovery fund.
It’s the projects that many rural communities have already identified — and identified to me in many of the meetings at the Union of B.C. Municipalities annual general meeting — that are related to actual longer-term rural development initiatives that attract people to the area, that improve the quality of life for people living in rural communities and that can be a springboard to further economic and social development.
I just want to make sure that the member is clear that these funds are not being redirected into a disaster fund. It’s a rural development dividend initiative.
D. Barnett: I’m still not satisfied — I’m sorry, Minister — with the answer.
Local governments are great assets. I was there for 17 years. This rural dividend goes beyond municipality boundaries. This dividend has been utilized by many First Nations, by small communities, unincorporated, not connected to any local government. This is where economic development needs to carry on.
We keep talking about local governments, and we forget those out there. That’s basically why we started this rural dividend. It was to ensure that in areas where people live, where people do need jobs and assistance, it happens, not through local governments and not through any other avenue.
Will this carry on in the same context? Or is it completely going to be changed to the regional level, just to local government level?
Hon. D. Donaldson: Well, the intent of the disbursement of the remaining rural dividend dollars is to benefit those living in rural areas. Now, I am fully aware that everybody living in a rural area doesn’t live in a municipality. Some live in regional districts, and of course, there are many First Nations communities as well. This disbursement will be available to those people.
Those living in areas that have no local government representation, whether it’s a regional district or a municipality — I have some people, for instance, in Stikine who are in areas like that — have other mechanisms, local organizations, where we are able to flow the funds through.
So just to make sure the member knows that this disbursement will be for all communities. As the previous member discussed, we want it to be a rigorous application process, and the general principles that apply now will apply into the future.
J. Rustad: I’ve heard talk about tweaking the rural dividend fund. But more importantly here, I believe I heard the minister say that he would like to see a focus on the areas impacted by the fires. I understand that the areas impacted by the fires do need support. They need the investment. There’s no question, and I don’t think anybody would argue that.
Is the minister suggesting that he was going to be taking funds away that would normally be allocated to potential projects from other rural communities to be focused on the fire area? Or will the minister commit to adding additional funds for these development opportunities in the fire areas so that the other areas across the province in rural B.C. are not seen as paying for the investments that the minister would like to be able to see in the areas impacted by the fires?
Hon. D. Donaldson: That’s a good question to clarify. We’re not taking this money away from anyone else, any other communities. We just distributed, under the third intake, $11 million, and it was distributed across the province.
I can’t speak to the future above the $25 million that’s in this budget estimates per year. We’ll be making Treasury Board submissions for the next fiscal year on that $25 million or increased funding.
As far as priorities, obviously we have some communities that are impacted more than others as far as rural development goes. We have our fire recovery strategies employed under our four important areas. I won’t go over them again.
As far as the prioritization of projects that takes place normally during the rural dividend review process, that’s something that we’ll ensure considers the needs of communities in the impacted areas, as far as rural development goes.
J. Rustad: I’m not quite sure if I understood what he said with that. Maybe I’ll ask the question in a bit of a different way.
My understanding of the $25 million. There was $14 million left this fiscal year. I understand there’ll need to be a Treasury Board submission if the program is going forward, even though I understand from the budget that the line item that contains that $25 million is still there in the projected year 2 and year 3. So I’m not sure why there is a need for the Treasury Board submission around that, but in any case, we’ll ask that question next spring.
The key here is there’s about $14 million, or thereabouts, in my understanding, left for distribution this year. There are many communities around the province, whether they have suffered from fires or not, that are in need of economic development.
I understand the prioritization. What I am concerned about is that the rural dividend fund will be used to help offset, in terms of recovery for these areas impacted, rather than be used for what its intent was, and that’s to be able to help all the rural communities around the province.
My hope is this minister will be advocating for additional funds for that offset and that need in the impact area, rather than taking an existing program and reallocating those dollars to be able to help the needs in that area at the expense of other communities.
Hon. D. Donaldson: I’m definitely advocating for additional funds, especially with the federal government, around the recovery aspect, for instance, and the future prevention activities in the forest surrounding communities. That work is underway.
I just want to give an example. For instance, an example would be fencing. I mean, we already have, under our recovery program, a program in place to assist ranchers with fencing that was destroyed during the wildfire season. That is under our recovery envelope. It’s not something that would be considered under the remaining, as the member said, approximately $14 million for this fiscal year that is still in the rural dividend envelope.
D. Barnett: You have some economic development officers under your ministry that have been in place for some time, regional economic development officers. Now, you have those in place. You also now are funding what you call recovery managers in municipalities and regional districts to go out and gather information.
Could you please explain why two different job descriptions for basically the same job? What is the budget for this? How long will these recovery managers be in place? Who will they be working with? How far will their mandate expand to bring information back to the minister as to what type of recovery is needed in the regions? And what is your full budget once they come back with the recovery plan?
Hon. D. Donaldson: We’ve got a couple of parts of that answer. The recovery managers that are in eight communities — or are scheduled to be in eight communities; I believe they’re in the eight communities now — are not employees of this ministry. They are employees of the communities. Their resource support came through the disaster financial assistance arrangements with the federal government.
The whole concept there was to ensure that communities developed their own recovery plans. What we heard from communities consistently is that they didn’t want a top-down approach. They wanted the ability to develop their own recovery plans, and we heard that and responded to it by securing this funding from the federal government so that the communities could hire their own recovery manager to help determine the communities’ priorities.
The member will know very well that many of the communities, smaller communities, are very stressed when it comes to human resources. So having the ability to draw on another person and having the funds for that person to actually come up with the community’s priorities, in consultation with community members and organizations, is a pretty important role. It’s part of our philosophy that communities develop their own recovery plans.
The regional economic development officers are part of this ministry’s complement. When that program came over for the regional economic officers from the previous ministry, it was approximately a $2.2 million transfer of resources. The regional economic officers are the contact point for all government programs in the regions. In some instances, the recovery managers will be in touch with those regional economic officers.
The whole point about what recovery plan resources will be required — that’s being built up from the grass roots, from communities. Of course, that will be subject to a budget submission for the next fiscal year, and we’ll build that budget submission as we get feedback from the communities, from the work that the recovery managers have done.
For instance, when I met with the Williams Lake council, they felt it would take about six weeks — this was back to the UBCM — before they had that recovery plan in a form that was specific enough and efficient enough and realistic enough to ask for a dollar figure to be associated with that recovery plan. That’s the kind of process that we’re embarking on.
S. Thomson: A very quick question, maybe just to seek more clarity. I know both my colleagues have been trying to seek clarity around the remaining rural dividend funds that are available in this fiscal year, the $14 million that is left. Many applicants, as you know, in the previous program applied for planning grants at the $10,000 level in the program, with the anticipation that that would provide them the opportunity to apply for the next step, the higher level of program applications, the $100,000 cap or the $500,000 program, in terms of a partnership.
Just for clarity, in this fiscal year, with the remaining funds in the program, are those communities going to be eligible? Is there going to be an intake that will allow those communities to apply for funds? We all understand the importance of addressing the issues in the fire-impacted areas, but I think what communities outside of those areas want to know is whether they’re still going to have access to the fund in the next intake, within the $14 million that is currently left in this year’s funding.
The Chair: Noting the hour, Minister.
Hon. D. Donaldson: Thank you for the warning, and thank you for my first direct question from the member who held the position I hold right now. Thank you for that.
A couple of things. The planning grant of $10,000 I know was very valuable to communities. Coming from a very small community, I know that kind of funding isn’t readily available. The former minister, the member, will know that simply because a community was in receipt of a planning grant didn’t necessarily mean they were green-lighted for further grants within the rural dividend program. But it definitely put them in place for project proposals for all types of future government programming. It wasn’t just that the $10,000 would help them in that aspect of the rural dividend but other programs as well.
I don’t think there’s any doubt that the fire-impacted communities are going to need rural dividend support like they wanted before the fires, and that will happen under the $14 million remaining. But the balance of that will be available for the kinds of programs the former minister, the member, outlined.
I want to make sure that there’s some feeling of assurances out there in the rural communities that the remaining rural dividend dollars will go towards the kinds of programs that had been forwarded by communities.
J. Rustad: Thank you. That will wrap it up for the rural development side here today. This afternoon we’ll start off, once again, with a few things on fire recovery and go into other components.
With that, I move that the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:56 a.m.
The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.
Committee of Supply (Section B), having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. D. Eby moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Mr. Speaker: This House stands adjourned until 1:30 p.m. today.
The House adjourned at 11:57 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
MENTAL HEALTH
AND ADDICTIONS
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:04 a.m.
On Vote 35: ministry operations, $4,941,000 (continued).
Hon. J. Darcy: I wanted to revisit a couple of issues that arose yesterday. There was a question about staffing at the Crosstown Clinic. I would like to provide that information to the members.
There were questions about the Crosstown Clinic staffing. There are two full-time equivalent social workers, four RNs or registered psych nurses, one FTE charge registered nurse, two FTE clinic support workers, one FTE nurse practitioner, three physicians, one FTE medical office assistant and one FTE clinical coordinator. That’s the staffing information.
There was another question that was raised yesterday that I would like to revisit. That was the issue of secure care. I have been speaking with parents from many different communities and different types of families, and I’ve certainly heard consistently that there are serious gaps in access to the services that our children and youth need.
Many families are really struggling and can’t get access to services their children with mental health or addictions need. Parents have told me that different service providers don’t coordinate services or won’t or can’t share information with each other or with parents. I’ve heard from families in the Cowichan Valley that there are no youth addiction treatment beds at all in their community. I’ve heard from families who were not able to access mental health supports for their children in school when we know intervening early can help issues from becoming worse.
I’ve also talked with many parents who fear for the safety of their children who use drugs but refuse or leave treatment. They feel helpless, and their entire focus is on keeping their child alive. Some of those I’ve spoken to have called for government to find ways to compel their child into addictions treatment.
In Paige’s Story, published by the Representative for Children and Youth in 2015, it was recommended that government explore the creation of a form of secure care with all appropriate legal safeguards that would allow for the apprehension of vulnerable children and youth whose situation places them at an unacceptable level of risk. To date, safe care legislative proposals have never been passed into law in British Columbia, largely due to the concerns about scope and application of the proposed legislation, infringement on youth’s rights and the potential impact on Aboriginal youth.
This is a very complex issue. We need to look at the evidence on how effective this approach is and the experience of other jurisdictions that have moved in this direction. This is an issue that we will examine as part of our work to develop a strategy to create a seamless, coordinated system of mental health and addictions care that supports families effectively and that supports child and youth mental health.
The Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions will be the lead in examining the evidence and legislative and policy implications related to any implementation of safe care legislation focused on young people at risk of extreme harm due to substance use. This work aligns with the ministry’s mandate to create and examine policy directions focused on mental health and addictions.
The Ministry of Health and the Ministry of Children and Family Development would have a responsibility to consider any policy directions from the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions. Should any version of safe care legislation be implemented, the Ministry of Children and Family Development would ultimately be responsible for service delivery.
That is a much more fulsome answer and a slightly corrected answer from the one that I gave yesterday.
J. Thornthwaite: Thank you for the clarification. Yes, indeed, yesterday the minister had directed me to the Minister of Children and Families with regards to this issue.
I will want to canvass a few questions on that topic, but first of all, I have a colleague that would like to ask a question. Because he’s got to get into the other House, I thought I’d let him go first.
L. Throness: I have a two-part question today. My first question is for the Minister of Health, and the second is to our new Minister of Mental Health and Addictions.
I gave a two-minute statement, which I’m sure the minister was listening to with rapt attention, in the House just a moment ago about the assisted living registry and about VisionQuest, which operates in my riding. It has space for about 40 men who would otherwise be on the streets of the Fraser Valley, prolifically offending.
They are providing a very tangible and substantial public benefit every hour of the day, but they can hardly afford to keep going because the amount that is provided per client is very low — just under $31 per day to pay for everything. It was my idea that perhaps we could provide much more long-term treatment for more people by ramping up support for the non-profit sector.
The other thing that needs to be done is to create a professional association that will help these people to set standards and to push out bad actors, because there are some bad actors in the system. I’m wondering: has the minister considered ramping up the non-profit sector by providing more support and regulation for them?
My second question, which I’ll just deliver and sit down: I want to know from our new minister whether she could comment….
Hon. J. Darcy: Could we do these one at a time?
L. Throness: Okay, sure.
Hon. J. Darcy: Thank you to the member opposite for the question. We know that putting in place a seamless, coordinated system for mental health and addictions is going to involve everybody stepping up to the plate. We plan to work…. As we develop our plan for a far more effective system than we have now, we will be working with and consulting with and engaging a variety of stakeholders across the system.
This is not about one-size-fits-all. The continuum of supports that needs to be in place ranges from saving peoples’ lives in the overdose crisis and harm reduction to support for recovery programs and treatment programs of a wide variety. Again, it’s not one-size-fits-all.
We would be happy to learn more about the particular program that is offered. If the member has more information that he can share with my ministry, I would be very happy to see it. We will be looking at all options as we go forward.
L. Throness: I just want to inform the minister that we have, in Chilliwack, about 400 homeless people. It has at least doubled in the past couple of years. The crime rate in Chilliwack is double the national average. There are just horrendous problems in my community, most of them related to addiction. I want to pledge my support to the minister if she can ramp up addictions treatment.
Now, I wanted a comment on the emphasis that the government places on harm reduction versus abstinence-based, long-term treatment. Could the minister comment on the emphasis that she would see placed? I understand that public policy is always a matter of emphasis. It’s never none of one and all of the other. But what kind of emphasis does our new minister place on abstinence-based, long-term treatment, which I will happily say that I favour?
Hon. J. Darcy: Before I get into my comments, I wanted to just read a quote from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, a definition of recovery. They say: “Recovery is a process of change through which individuals improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life and strive to reach their full potential.” I think that’s an important starting place, because it recognizes that there are many pathways to hope. There are many pathways to recovery, and recovery looks very different for different people.
We know that we need to strengthen our treatment and recovery programs across the spectrum. That includes supports in the community, out-patient services, access to counselling, treatment beds and recovery homes. The member asked a question, which we did actually discuss yesterday, about recovery homes, some of which are very bad actors. That certainly will be part of our strategy going forward — ensuring that if a facility calls itself a recovery house, it actually meets the standards of care that it needs to in order to provide a pathway to recovery and hope.
It has been widely accepted in this province and, frankly, in this country, with the exception perhaps of the Stephen Harper federal government, that a four-pillar approach to addictions is the approach that we should follow. That’s the approach of our government. It’s the approach of the former government in British Columbia. That four pillars approach speaks to prevention, harm reduction, treatment and enforcement.
Let me just touch on some of those. The prevention side. We discussed that quite a bit yesterday — the issue of prevention, the issue of early intervention. We need to fundamentally rebuild our system for child and youth mental health in this province. It has been left in a state of disarray that has been the subject of numerous reports by the Representative for Children and Youth, numerous tragedies of children and youth who have fallen through the cracks. That piece is absolutely critical to ensuring that we do prevention at a very, very early age so that for kids in school who are dealing with early stages of mental illness, it doesn’t turn into severe mental illness and they don’t, in turn, turn to substance use.
Treatment is absolutely critical — I could not agree with the member more — treatment and recovery programs. I have to tell you that on Overdose Awareness Day here in Victoria — it was held across the province, across the country — a number of weeks ago, I met with the parents of a young woman. She’s in her 20s now. She was sexually assaulted in her teens and, as a result of that deep, deep trauma, ended up turning to street drugs and became addicted.
They spend every waking hour of their day trying to keep their daughter alive. They said to me — and they were weeping as they were saying it — that there are no treatment beds available for young women in Victoria, and the wait-list in the Lower Mainland and elsewhere is very, very long. So yes, we absolutely need to rebuild our system for treatment and recovery. It’s not a reasonable expectation that it could be done in 12 weeks after 16 years of neglect.
Harm reduction. The bottom line with harm reduction is that people have to be alive in order to be able to go into treatment and get to recovery. When we’re seeing four people a day dying in British Columbia in the worst public health emergency in decades, surely the member would agree that we need to do everything possible to save their lives and to treat those people who are living with addictions, many of whom are homeless. Approximately 70 percent of the people who are living on the streets are suffering from mental health and addictions.
Surely the member would agree that it is critical, that it’s an urgent priority and that it should be an urgent priority for our government to keep those people alive and then to be able to get them into treatment — and not six weeks from now, not six months from now, not a year from now. If we save their lives from overdose with a naloxone kit, we should be able to offer them treatment and a pathway to hope right away. We don’t have that system in place now. That’s a product of 16 years of neglect.
We are working as quickly as we can. We have a clear mandate from the Representative for Children and Youth to have a plan for child and youth mental health in place a year from now, but we’re beginning to take some steps already in this budget and will in the months to come.
L. Throness: About a year ago in the Public Accounts Committee, I questioned health officials about their goal for addictions treatment. They said that their goal for addictions treatment was to help addicts live positive lives.
I want to ask about the minister’s goal. Would she treat addiction like a disease and aim to cure their addiction, like any other disease would be cured by the health system? Or does she just want to help addicts live positive lives? Is it better to be off drugs, or is it better to be maintained on drugs in a positive way? Could the minister comment?
Hon. J. Darcy: Let me read this into the record again, because I think this quote, which is from the Canadian Centre on Substance Abuse, says it very, very well: “Recovery is a process of change through which individuals improve their health and wellness, live a self-directed life and strive to reach their full potential.” I’m not a clinical expert; neither is the member opposite. People living with addictions should be in a position to rely on clinical experts, to have access to clinical experts.
I spoke with a man last night, a father, for an hour. He told me the story about his son who died from overdose. It was a long and complicated story. But one piece of it involved him going to an emergency room, seeking help, being given a card that he then called and waiting eight months to see an addiction specialist — so a long and complicated journey.
We have serious, serious gaps in our system. We need to provide help and support and care for people wherever they are in their journey in order to rebuild their lives, and hopefully, for the majority of those people, that will be recovery, full recovery. But recovery looks different for different people. We want them to be able to live healthy, productive lives. It’s really easy, and I guess it might make good media stories, to focus on one part of that continuum. But I can tell you…. And you weren’t here yesterday, Member. I understand. We all have duties elsewhere.
I told the story of a young man named Kyle who was treated at the Crosstown Clinic in Vancouver. There are many stories. Last Door Recovery program in New Westminster, which is a full abstinence-based program, does amazing, amazing work. I take my hats off to them, and I’m a total supporter of the work that they do. But not everybody is going to…. That’s not the path for everyone, or it may take several steps to get on the journey to get to that place.
For Kyle, for instance, at the Crosstown Clinic, who had become addicted to street drugs at age 15 and who was incarcerated a dozen times at least, with his life spiralling out of control…. He was referred to the Crosstown Clinic. This young man got one diploma as a cook and is working as a cook and giving back to his community, working as a peer support worker, helping to support and counsel other people living with addictions. And he’s also getting his hairdressing diploma.
He is living a healthy and productive life in British Columbia. That was his pathway to hope, but it’s not the same. People need clinical guidance and clinical support to get them to the place that works so they can get on that pathway, whatever it looks like.
J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to ask the minister whether or not…. I happen to know, with the work that I’ve been doing in my critic position…. I’ve been talking to many of the same people that you have been talking to.
I’d like to know whether or not she has a knowledge of the beds that are available for mental health and addiction in private facilities and whether or not this government would consider funding empty beds that are available in private facilities from public funds.
Hon. J. Darcy: We don’t have an inventory of private beds. The government, as the member knows, already does pay subsidies to some private recovery facilities and to some private residential treatment facilities. As the member also no doubt knows, in order to be eligible for a subsidy for these facilities, which are very, very expensive in many cases, you have to be very poor, basically, to be eligible for social assistance or disability assistance in order to be subsidized. This means that there’s a whole spectrum of people who aren’t eligible for subsidy because they’re not poor enough.
At the other end of the spectrum, people who may have excellent employee assistance plan programs or extended health plans or may have considerable financial means of their own…. I’ve certainly spoken with people who have taken out loans of tens of thousands of dollars in order to support a family member in care. We will be looking at the entire spectrum of forms of care, care providers, as we develop a strategy over the coming year for a comprehensive system for mental health and addictions in British Columbia.
J. Thornthwaite: Okay, well, thank you. I think I’m happy with that answer, that you, the ministry, will be considering utilizing the so-called empty beds that are available in private facilities, such that we’re not reinventing the wheel.
I guess what our worry is, is that the cost and expense of developing numerous facilities perhaps wouldn’t be necessary if we could just utilize the beds that are already available. I think you said that you were going to look into that, so I’m happy with that answer — if I have understood your answer. Maybe not?
Hon. J. Darcy: What I said was that we will be looking at a wide range of options of existing facilities, what new treatment is necessary. The member can appreciate that that is all part of developing a strategy for mental health and addictions. We don’t have that strategy yet, and we will be considering all options as we go forward.
J. Thornthwaite: Okay. That’s good — considering all options. Thank you.
Now I’d like to just go back to the secure care issue that now is back in your ministry. It was in MCFD yesterday, but now it’s back here. So this is good. I have some questions, specifically about the mandatory counselling and treatment.
I do not know if the minister is aware of the issue of Kimberly Proctor and Kimberly’s law that encompasses, actually, not just provincial jurisdictions but also federal. Obviously, I’m not going to talk about the federal end of it. I’m going to talk about the provincial end of it, and I’ve got some questions.
What happened to this poor child, this youth, was that she was murdered and dismembered by some youth in her school that knew her. That was sad enough, but the extremely sad part about it is that the two youth that were the perpetrators, young offenders, were known to the system for many years. They were identified in the schools of having behaviours that were indicative of worry, and there was a whole history that the schools had identified that these individuals were at high risk to seriously harm either themselves or each other, or certainly somebody else. In this tragic case, it involved Kimberly Proctor.
My question has to do with mandatory treatment. We talk about mandatory treatment for those who need mental health assistance for themselves, parents desperately trying to get their children into mental health facilities or recovery facilities, treatment facilities. My question is directed with regards to mandatory treatment for individuals who perhaps might be protected by their family members. So they’re not getting help from their immediate family members, but it is quite clear from the school system, the psychiatrists and medical profession that these people need help and need it now in order to prevent injuries to themselves or to others.
My question to the minister is: in your strategy, with regards to looking at the secure care issues, would you consider mandatory treatment for potential offenders?
Hon. J. Darcy: Of course, mandatory treatment and secure care, the issues that the member has canvassed, are all issues that we will need to look at as part of developing an effective system for mental health and addictions. So, yes, these are issues that we will be looking at. The member is aware that these are very, very complicated questions, and there isn’t…. We need to be guided at all times, also, by clinical decisions when these determinations are being made.
I want to come back to the issue of prevention, because if we had a more robust system in our schools for early identification of issues — in this case, on the part of the youth who were involved in perpetrating the actions the member referred to…. If we had stronger systems in place in our schools for early intervention and prevention, perhaps we would not get to this place.
We have a very, very challenging situation today in the child and youth mental health system in general and in our schools in particular. As a result of 16 years of neglect, there’s an awful lot of work that needs to be done in order to build up those supports in our school system so that we can detect those problems early and prevent problems from occurring.
J. Thornthwaite: I know I have heard this mantra, the 16 years of neglect. I would like to remind the minister that the previous government spent $1.42 billion annually on mental health and addictions, so this was not something that was neglected. We all admit — myself, you…. Everybody in this room, I’m assuming, agrees that we need to do more for these children and youth in schools. This is something I have been personally advocating for, for four years and certainly have driven many ministers up the wall with regards to the way that I’ve been advocating for it. We are all very, very familiar that more needs to be done.
With regards to the issue of the mandatory treatment, though, it’s different, because it’s part of the secure care. These children and youth were identified as needing mandatory treatment, but at the same time, despite the efforts of the school system and despite the efforts of the professionals, they were unable to get the help.
You probably would like to elaborate a little bit more on the secure care end of it, but I would urge…. Whenever these talks are going on and these consultations are going on with regards to the Secure Care Act or, in the case of the bill that private member Gordie Hogg brought forward earlier this year called the Safe Care Act…. These are the types of things with regards to mandatory treatment that would be considered in potential adoption of an act of that sort.
Hon. J. Darcy: I’ll just reiterate that of course, we’ll be looking at issues for secure care and mandatory treatment, both very complicated issues, as part of our mandate going forward.
I want to come back to the issue, though, of our schools and early intervention. I don’t question for one moment the member opposite’s commitment to these issues and the advocacy she has done in her time in this Legislature. But I do think it’s important for us to remember that the government she was part of spent 16 years fighting with teachers over issues about class size and class composition that are integrally linked to the supports that our children need in their schools.
I’m sure the member opposite, as all of us have, has spent time talking to parents struggling to get the supports their kids need in the classroom or the mental health supports in the school system. I’m sure that she has spoken with teachers and educators about the challenges they face. There is an awful lot of rebuilding that needs to be done.
The Representative for Children and Youth has been eloquent about the inadequacies in the system and has asked us, as a new government, to develop a strategy for child and youth mental health within one year of when his report on Joshua’s story was released, and we plan to respect that commitment, But there’s an awful lot of work to do.
J. Thornthwaite: I agree there’s going to be a significant amount of help with regards to classroom size and composition, with regards to the schools, for teachers. That’s great, more teaching positions. But when we’re talking about mental health and we’re talking about addictions and trauma care or the ability of professionals to help children in schools, it’s more than just teachers. There are other professionals that are needed to get into the school system.
That’s why what we canvassed yesterday was the partnerships between, say, Vancouver Coastal Health and the Foundry at the Mountainside Secondary. This was a holistic environment that encompassed, obviously, not just trained teachers to teach but also trained professionals in mental health and addictions to also help within their specialty within the school system. I hope that that isn’t lost.
My other question was…. I wanted to make sure I got this in, because I know we’re going to run out of time. A colleague of mine, who is actually in the other room asking questions to another ministry…. This is the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin. Obviously, she has been a strong advocate for rural British Columbia for many years. Her question is with regards to mental health and addictions treatment in rural communities and whether or not the minister, or the new ministry, was going to put the same calibre of services in rural British Columbia as will be instigated here in the urban centres.
Hon. J. Darcy: Let me just return briefly to the previous question, the member’s comments on the previous answer, before moving on.
There is no question that it takes a team, it takes a community, and it takes a province to support our children and our youth more effectively. We absolutely need more mental health supports in our schools, and we absolutely need our schools to be part of hubs and networks in the community to give our young people the best possible support and the best possible chance in life.
I think the member would also agree that teachers are the front line and that when kids are acting up in class and exhibiting what are seen first to be behavioural problems in the class, it’s really the teacher that is the first point of contact. It’s the teacher that is able to say, if they have the time — if they’re not overwhelmed with classes too big and classes with significant numbers of children with special needs, significant numbers of children who are English language learners…. It’s for them to be able to then identify for the mental health professionals and the school counsellors: “I think that maybe this child is dealing with ADHD, or suffering from anxiety or depression.” They’re not the clinical folks, but they’re often the ones that experience how the issue plays out in the classroom first.
There is certainly a connection between having adequate numbers of teachers and special education assistants in the classroom as part of a team that includes mental health professionals.
On the issue of rural British Columbia, boy, did I hear an earful at the recent meeting of Union of B.C. Municipalities. I met with dozens of municipalities, the majority of them rural communities, also a number of smaller urban centres. One after another after another spoke to me about the inadequacy of treatment programs and mental health programs in their communities and of how much more challenging it is to deal with the issue of stigma, often, in smaller communities.
One mayor or councillor after another told me about people getting on a bus to a treatment facility that was ten hours away, 12 hours away, and what a challenge that was for the individual who had reached the point of seeking treatment and then had to travel that very long distance. They used the term…. We talk about people falling off the bus or falling off the wagon. They said people literally, in that journey to treatment and in the journey after treatment, coming back to their communities — that that can be a very risky proposition. Many people literally decide to get off the bus in the process.
People have talked about the need for treatment programs in communities, for mental health and addictions teams in their communities. I have to say that at the gathering of First Nations leaders and our cabinet and MLAs, I heard the same story from First Nations communities right across British Columbia — in that case, and this is often in even more remote communities, the absence of treatment services and the absence of mental health counselling programs and the kinds of serious, serious challenges that Indigenous communities are facing with suicide epidemics and three times the number of people dying from overdose as the population at large. So absolutely, our strategy for an improved system for mental health and addictions will have a very, very strong component for rural communities.
I want to say that, just in this budget, we have committed significant resources to working with Indigenous people in British Columbia. We will be working closely with the First Nations Health Authority, the Métis Nation and the friendship centres so that we are addressing the needs of status and non-status Indians and Métis people. There is a crying need for support with addiction services, treatment programs, recovery programs, as well as immediate response to the overdose crisis.
J. Thornthwaite: I know that we’re running out of time and that I’m supposed to be doing my final remarks.
I would like to thank the staff and both ministers for being here. I’m encouraged that we’re part of a team. We recognize that this is a really, really important issue — mental health and addictions and recovery. It is a very, very important issue that this government has said has got top priority. I’m very much looking forward to the results of your strategies and your work moving forward.
Thank you to the minister and to her staff for listening to us and for answering the questions.
Hon. J. Darcy: I would like to take the opportunity to thank the member opposite, the spokesperson or critic for Mental Health and Addictions, for her questions and for all of the MLAs who have posed questions. I certainly look forward to working with you collaboratively. This building a better system for mental health and addictions surely needs to be a non-partisan issue where we take advantage of all of the best ideas from everybody on all sides of the House as well as the province in general.
I want to thank our team, who have worked diligently over a number of weeks preparing materials for estimates. It’s my first opportunity to be on this side of the House in estimates. I really appreciate the opportunity to answer the members’ questions and to speak to the commitment that our government has to creating a better system for mental health and addictions — broadly speaking and in particular, a better system for child and youth mental health as well as responding to the public health emergency with the overdose crisis.
The Chair: Hearing no further questions, I will now call Vote 35.
Vote 35: ministry operations, $4,941,000 — approved.
Hon. J. Darcy: I move that the committee rise, report resolution and completion of the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions estimates and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:48 a.m.
Copyright © 2017: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada