Third Session, 41st Parliament (2018)
OFFICIAL REPORT
OF DEBATES
(HANSARD)
Tuesday, May 8, 2018
Morning Sitting
Issue No. 130
ISSN 1499-2175
The HTML transcript is provided for informational purposes only.
The PDF transcript remains the official digital version.
CONTENTS
| Routine Business | |
|
Office of the Auditor General, An Independent Audit of Executive Expenses at School District 61, May 2018 |
|
| Orders of the Day | |
| Proceedings in the Douglas Fir Room | |
TUESDAY, MAY 8, 2018
The House met at 10:05 a.m.
[Mr. Speaker in the chair.]
Routine Business
Prayers.
Introductions by Members
Hon. A. Dix: Today we are, I’m sure, all delighted to welcome nurses to the Legislature from across B.C. — from rural areas, from urban areas and from Indigenous communities — to launch National Nurses Week.
I’d like to introduce the nurses who are with us today: Sherri Kensall; Valerie St. John; Andrea Burton; Alexandra Arndt; Michael Harrison; Sally Thorne; Lori Campbell; Agnes Black; Jessy Dame; Damen DeLeenheer; Teresa McFadyen; Joanne Maclaren; Sarah Jesshope; Tim Gauthier; Trudy Robertson; Karen Levy; Anita Dickson; Jennifer Gill; Brenda Childs; Kathleen Fyvie; Jacqollyne Keath; Mary Ann Machado; Tess Kroeker; Hannah Macdonald; Tania Dick; Stefanie Macleod; Christina Berlanda; Elizabeth Butler-Smythe; Michael Sandler; Sue Peck; Zachary, or even Zak, Matieschyn; Danielle Daigle; Martha Aviles-Granados; Andrea Azcona Axen; Andrea Taylor; Arielle Brown; Mary Judith Lynam; Fiona Hutchison; and Aditi Lakshmanan.
I wish everyone to wish them welcome. They know, and everyone knows, that they can drop by the Ned DeBeck Lounge today between 1:30 and four to chat with all of these nurses about what they mean in our communities.
N. Letnick: I also want to rise on the part of the official opposition to welcome all the nurses in the House. I’d also like to name all their names, but since the Minister of Health did such a great job doing it in the first place, I think we can pass on that. Just to say that when we are in need of health care, we can always rely on our nurses. They are sometimes the first person that we see when we get to our doctors’ offices or our hospitals.
I think everyone in this House can join the Minister of Health and myself and all the members here to say thank you to all the nurses and congratulations on Nursing Week. Enjoy the Ned DeBeck Lounge. We plan to come and see you between 1:30 and four o’clock.
Please make the nurses very welcome.
A. Weaver: I’d like to welcome several leaders of the Salvation Army of British Columbia. In light of this week being Emergency Preparedness Week, I’d like to acknowledge the significant response and support of the Salvation Army to B.C. residents, first responders and government. If needed during the 2018 fire-flood season or any other disaster emergency in the province, the Salvation Army is ready to provide emergency social services.
Please help me welcome Lt. Col. Jamie Braund, divisional commander of the Salvation Army, B.C. division; Lt. Col. Ann Braund, divisional director of women’s ministries; Mr. Mike Leland, divisional secretary of public relations and development, B.C. division; and Mrs. Patricia Mamic, the public and government affairs director, B.C. division.
M. Stilwell: I’d like to welcome to the House today three constituents who are in town and who came down for the MLA Prayer Breakfast this morning, hosted by Leading Influence. I’d like the House to welcome Tyler Cody, Zoe Martens and Susan Wakefield. Would the House please make them feel welcome.
Hon. J. Horgan: Joining us in the members’ gallery today are two constituents of mine from Langford–Juan de Fuca. Giuseppe and Diane Scaletta are here. They run the Queen Mother Veronica project, which the member for Esquimalt-Metchosin will be talking about in a moment. They are from the great state of Langford–Juan de Fuca. I’m very happy to have them here.
Giuseppe had a very good career in the health care sector, particularly focusing on vulnerable seniors. It’s great to see him here today to observe how we conduct ourselves here in the Legislature. Would the House please make him very, very welcome.
S. Bond: Today was the 12th annual prayer breakfast here in Victoria. I wanted to welcome to the gallery — although they’re not strangers here — and specially recognize today Rev. Tim Schindel and Rev. Jason Goertzen, who have made such wonderful friends and supporters. The breakfast was attended by yourself, Mr. Speaker, and members from all sides of the House.
We want to say thank you and express our gratitude for your service, for your friendship. I urge you to check out the 100-kilometre bike race of epic proportions where Schindel takes on Goertzen. They’re doing it to support Leading Influence. I know some of us may want to support them in that endeavour.
Thank you on behalf of all members for hosting the prayer breakfast for the 12th year.
M. Dean: Having lived in Ghana 25 years ago, it has a really special place in my heart. So I am really honoured to introduce here today, with the Scalettas from Langford–Juan de Fuca, Veronica Abugrago, who is the Paramount Queen Mother of the Bawku traditional area in the northeast corner of Ghana. Since becoming Queen Mother, she has worked tirelessly to empower women and girls in northern Ghana. Please make them very welcome.
Tributes
GEORGE GRILLS
J. Thornthwaite: I’d like to recognize a very good friend, volunteer and respected community member in North Vancouver who succumbed to cancer recently. George Grills was a remarkable man, loved by all who knew him, especially me and my team during parade season, when he drove his ’57 T-Bird, but especially his beloved wife, Lee, and daughter Karen.
May this House give them the support and love to help them through this difficult time.
Introductions by Members
Hon. D. Donaldson: I would like to have the assembly welcome the visit to the precinct today of the board of directors for the Council of Forest Industries, who’ll be meeting with government caucus.
I also would like to acknowledge that the Coast Forest Products Association has now become part of the Council of Forest Industries, headed up by Susan Yurkovich, the new organization.
A. Weaver: I’d like to welcome Jackson Vesey, a political science student going into his third year at UBC. He has relocated here this summer to learn all about politics in the province of British Columbia. Would the House please make him feel very welcome.
J. Rustad: It’s not often I get a chance to introduce a constituent or, as we know them, a Hoofian. Jessie MacIntosh is here from Vanderhoof. She’s down visiting her sister Hayley MacIntosh. She’s also attending UBC, where she will be graduating at the end of May from the pharmacy program. Would the House please make her welcome.
Hon. B. Ralston: We are joined today in the gallery by the first cohort of Mitacs Science Policy Fellows. This program, pioneered in British Columbia, matches a group of highly skilled PhD graduates with ministries across the government in order to utilize their subject matter expertise and help craft evidence-based policy, with the goal of improving policy outcomes and making better services for British Columbians.
I have a short list of names here, and since they’re in the gallery, I’d like to acknowledge them personally: Kathy Philps, who’s the lead for internships and fellowships at the B.C. Public Service Agency; Simona Tajoire, B.C. lead for science policy fellowships at Mitacs; and the fellows themselves — Anna Maria Giammarco, Caelan Marrville, Duncan Low, Emily Gray, Gillman Payette, Jessica Carriere, Jyoti Upadhyaya, Kathryn Jastremski, Natalie Linklater, Noemie Boulanger-Lapointe and Sara Elder. Would the House please make all of these fellows welcome.
Hon. M. Mungall: Well, my husband, Zak Matieschyn, is here with the nurses. Not only is he here to inform us of all the good work that nurses do in the province, but he has a secondary mission, and that is to polish up his dad jokes.
It’s at this time that I ask all members of the House to please not encourage him in this — Premier? But please do make him welcome.
Statements
(Standing Order 25B)
HEALTHY AGING AND
FIT FELLAS ACTIVITY
PROGRAM
R. Sultan: I have uncomfortable news. I’ve noticed you’re all getting older. Encouraging news. You need not become reliant on the Minister of Health. Experts prescribe exercise, social connectivity, healthy eating and cutting out the booze and cigarettes.
Fit Fellas of West Vancouver do the exercise and connectivity part, led by Barrie Chapman, recipient of a West Van community service award. If you visit our Seniors Activity Centre, twice a week you will find about 200 men of a certain age in black T-shirts jumping and bending to a rapid beat, sometimes inspired by an attractive fitness instructor. They’ve been doing this for about 45 years. It’s just for guys, except for the occasional trainer, and emphasizes aerobics, strength, coordination, balance and lots of laughs.
CIHI, the Canadian Institute for Health Information, with Vancouver YMCA, funded a two-year UBC study of the Fit Fellas model. It demonstrated the linkage between physical activity, functional capacity and reduced chronic disease.
Unfortunately, only 13 percent of Canadians over 65 do the recommended 150 minutes a week of moderate to vigorous physical activity. Therefore, I have a serious life-saving suggestion. Hon. Speaker will lead an exercise routine at the beginning of every question period.
Mr. Speaker: I’m thinking no.
YOUTH JUSTICE SYSTEM
AND SERVICES
R. Chouhan: This week is Youth Justice Week. This provides an opportunity for us all to recognize the important work being done to assist some of our province’s most vulnerable youth.
Youth justice services’ primary focus is on both public safety and the rehabilitation of youth who are in conflict with the law. They provide community-based services across the province as well as youth custody services and forensic psychiatric services.
It is critically important to remember that whatever combination of despair, poor decisions or tragic life circumstances have led someone down a path to criminal or youth justice involvement, they still have the capacity to change. They deserve the opportunity to be treated fairly.
My riding of Burnaby-Edmonds is home to one of two of the province’s youth custody centres. Last November I had an opportunity to visit Burnaby Youth Custody Services. At this centre, youth receive all of the critical programming necessary for a successful reintegration back into their community. Whether it is through education and skills training, counselling and psychiatric services, or recreational and leisure sports, the team at Burnaby Youth Custody Services do an exemplary job of supporting youth to develop more positive behaviour.
British Columbia is widely recognized as having one of the most progressive and effective systems of youth justice services in Canada, with the lowest per capita rate of youth in custody for the past several years. This House should be incredibly proud of all efforts to help shape and strengthen our youth justice system. Let us take time this week to express our gratitude to those working to support youth in our communities.
CYCLING ACTIVITIES AND SAFETY
IN SEA TO SKY
AREA
J. Sturdy: From the Upper Levels Highway to the Pemberton Meadows to the Duffey Lake Road, the popularity of cycling is increasing on roadways in West Vancouver–Sea to Sky. Events like the GranFondo, where cyclists ride from Vancouver to Whistler in a designated lane on the Sea to Sky Highway, or Whistler Ironman, now in its sixth year in the region, have all helped promote the sport for residents and visitors alike.
There is no question that cycling has become an important economic contributor to tourism in the province. With longer daylight hours and spring weather, we’re all seeing more cyclists on our roads. In the Sea to Sky and around the province, progress has been made on share-the-road signage and cyclists on-the-road signalling devices, like at Porteau Bluffs on Highway 99. Shoulder widening and road sweeping are also contributing to a better cycling experience. But more can be done.
One approach that has been successful in other jurisdictions has been the implementation of minimum passing-distance laws. Such laws require that a motor vehicle pass a vulnerable road user at a designated minimum passing distance. Over 27 jurisdictions in North America have implemented safer passing distances, as have several in Europe. In the West Midlands in the U.K., the enactment of a safer passing law led to significant safety improvements. The number of serious incidents with cyclists decreased by 20 percent in the year since the operation targeting unsafe passing was launched.
Cycling is good for our health, it’s good for the environment, and it’s good for the tourism economy. A minimum passing-distance law is one potential tool to make cycling more attractive to people in British Columbia. I know that I, for one, would welcome this consideration as I ride the Sea to Sky.
ELIZABETH LEWIS
AND LEGACY OF RESIDENTIAL
SCHOOLS
B. Ma: I rise to share with the House today that Elizabeth Lewis was lost to a fentanyl overdose last Monday, April 30. She was kind. She was 51 years old, and she had lived a hard life on the Downtown Eastside.
An intergenerational survivor of the residential school system and a victim of abuse, Elizabeth lost her parents when she was very young, and she spent most of her life missing them while struggling with mental health, disability and addiction. She leaves behind three children, including Autumn George, 32; Willard Lewis, 25; and Crystal Lewis, 24. They were all taken from her as babies. The eldest was adopted, and her younger two children lived their lives as youth in care.
Intergenerational trauma stemming from Canada’s residential school system continues to impact many, many members in many communities across B.C. The North Shore community is no exception.
I recently had the privilege of joining school district 44 educators and members of the Squamish Nation at a special viewing of Indian Horse, which weaves together ice hockey and the residential school system into what may be the most painfully Canadian film I have ever watched. Squamish Nation speakers — including district principal for school district 44 Brad Baker, Adina Williams and Sempúlyan Gonzales — made clear, in sharing their personal stories, that the trauma caused by the residential school system continues to follow them, their families, their communities through generations each and every day.
The late Elizabeth Lewis’s youngest child, Crystal Lewis, a member of the North Vancouver community, leaves these words for her mother: “Although our time together was short, I want you to know that I thank you every day for giving me a purpose in life by inspiring me to be a leader to help to break the cycle of intergenerational trauma and inspire our youth to reach their full potential. Thank you, Mom, for inspiring me to be the change I want to see. May we all work together to help those who are hurting and lift up those who have lost their way.”
SALVATION ARMY EMERGENCY SERVICES
FOR WILDFIRE
EVACUEES
J. Tegart: I rise in the House today to recognize one of the many organizations that step up whenever they are needed, wherever they are needed and for as long as they are needed. That group is the Salvation Army. During last year’s summer fire season, the Salvation Army was there from day one onward. They deployed the emergency disaster service mobile kitchens and personnel. They activated their emergency operations centre to coordinate logistics across the province, and they launched a fundraising appeal across the country, which brought in close to $1.7 million to help victims of the fire.
While crews continued to fight the flames, the Salvation Army personnel were there to welcome evacuees, feed them, shelter them and help to meet their immediate needs in 12 designated arrival locations across the province. In Kamloops alone, 12,766 meals, 55,000 drinks and 38,874 snacks were served. Fifty-six emotional and spiritual care workers were available, and 433 volunteer workers put in 4,154 volunteer hours. The Salvation Army also served in Kelowna, Williams Lake, Prince George, Vernon, Surrey and other locations.
The Salvation Army motto is “Giving hope today.” But I want everyone to know that they’ve given hope for the future. I’d like to ask the House to join me in saying thank you.
B.C. HYDRO TECHNICIANS
B. D’Eith: In December 2017, there were two major ice storms that left over 100,000 Hydro customers without power in the Fraser Valley, many of whom live in Abbotsford and Mission. While most of us went inside to stay warm, over 450 power line technicians from all over British Columbia worked around the clock to fix dozens of broken poles, damaged transformers, ice-encased equipment and wire spans in very dangerous conditions.
Last week I was very pleased, with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Petroleum Resources, to present certificates of appreciation to both the Abbotsford and Maple Ridge technicians for their heroic efforts in December 2017. I’m sure that everyone in the House will join me in expressing our gratitude to the technicians, who often go into disasters first, whether they be ice storms, floods or wildfires.
On the same day, the minister and I, along with B.C. Hydro president Chris O’Riley, were very pleased to tour the now fully operational Ruskin dam retrofit. All three new turbines and generators are running, powering over 33,000 Metro Vancouver homes.
This visit was especially special for me, because Boyd Mason, the senior project manager, has been one of my closest friends for over 40 years. Boyd explained that building this $748 million Ruskin dam renovation is kind of like giving your car’s motor an overhaul and replacing the brakes and tires while you’re driving down the highway. That’s what they did.
The project presented many challenges. For example, while digging, the crew discovered a 9,000-year-old First Nations cultural site. Construction plans were altered, and the site was left in place according to the wishes of the Kwantlen First Nation.
We live in an electrified world and often take access to electricity for granted. I think it’s important for us to take a moment to recognize the importance of our hydro facilities and the many people who work very hard to keep our lights on.
Oral Questions
EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
IMPACTS AND
IMPLEMENTATION
A. Wilkinson: It’s an important day for nursing in the Legislature, and of course, it’s important to point out that the Premier’s new payroll tax will be taking literally hundreds of millions of dollars out of the health care system, because it’s applicable to health authorities, universities, colleges and care homes — all of the employers of nurses.
I’ve received a copy of a February 22 Ministry of Finance note. It says that health authorities, school districts and local governments should be paying the employer health tax. The quote is: “It would be unfair to give the public sector an advantage by exempting them from paying this tax.” So taxes are paid to the government and not given back to the public sector.
One week later the Premier said that the Finance Minister would “ensure that non-profits and government agencies are kept whole.” The Premier, yet again, has broken his word. Can the Premier clarify this for the 50 nurses in the gallery? Do you intend to continue taking hundreds of millions of dollars out of the health budget and putting it into a payroll tax rather than to front-line care?
Hon. C. James: I think, really, question period this week, from the Leader of the Opposition, is a list of all the failures of the other side when it came to supporting the government in British Columbia, including health care.
In fact, it was the other side that doubled MSP premiums that are collected from everyone in British Columbia. Unlike the other side, we are having conversations with health authorities, not-for-profits and charities. I had some very good meetings last week, while the Legislature was out — to be able to talk to them about the 50 percent savings that they have, so we’re making sure we’re tracking that; the 50 percent savings they will have next year, so to be able to account for that. Decisions will be coming very shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: I’m glad to see that the Finance Minister is prepared to answer a question when the Premier is not, because apparently, he doesn’t have his facts straight.
We see this 2 percent payroll tax being applied to the entire public sector, to charities, to local government. As the Finance Ministry memo says: “Any employer with a payroll over $1.5 million will pay the full rate.” So clearly, there’s no intent to exempt charities. There’s no intent to exempt non-profits.
At the same time, we have thousands of charities out there saying they simply cannot afford to pay a 2 percent payroll tax. Of course, the health authorities, with tens of billions of dollars in budget, will pay hundreds of millions of dollars in payroll tax back to the government after receiving the cheque in the first place.
This is at the point of absurdity. The Finance Minister proudly stands up and says their tax is being cut in half. Nonsense. It’s being tripled to municipalities.
When are you going to accept the fact that this payroll tax represents an increase in taxation on the public sector and that it makes no sense whatsoever?
Hon. C. James: Unlike the member across the way, I’ve been having conversations with school districts. I’ve been having conversations with charities and not-for-profits, with health authorities and with others about the impact of the employers health tax — about the savings they have with MSP in this year of 50 percent, the 50 percent savings they have next year with MSP, how they apply those savings towards the employers health tax.
We are working through the implementation. That’s why we’re implementing this tax in 2019 and 2020 — so we have time to work through this implementation. You will see the responses very shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The Leader of the Official Opposition on a second supplemental.
A. Wilkinson: This is government in action under the NDP: “Let’s introduce a speculation tax. But then we’ll change our mind and whittle it back and then say, ‘Oh no, it’ll still raise the same amount of money.’ Let’s introduce a payroll tax. We’ll apply it to the whole public sector, according to our memo from the finance department. But then maybe we’ll change our mind. Maybe we’ll find some favourites and cut them back and save them the tax, but the rest of you are going to pay.”
So what is tax policy under this Finance Minister? Is it who makes the squeakiest noise after the budget is announced, and then she decides to roll back the taxes? When is this Premier going to show some integrity in the tax process and stop picking friends and enemies?
Hon. C. James: I guess that the Leader of the Opposition, now, is saying that charities should have to pay full, and we shouldn’t look at the implementation. That’s exactly what I heard from the member across the way. You will see an implementation plan. I’m also presuming that the other side wants MSP premiums to stay in place and not save families $900 and $1,800 as individuals.
I know that the other side has trouble understanding what it means to take time to listen to British Columbians. That’s exactly what we are doing. As I said when I brought in the taxes, we are giving time for their implementation so we can work through the implementation with groups and organizations. That’s exactly what we’re doing. We’re listening. We’re working through the implementation, and the answers will be shortly.
I. Paton: The Premier said on April 5 that the Minister of Finance “is consulting widely to hear from people about what the consequences of the employer health tax will be.” The Delta Gymnastics Society, the Delta Hospital Foundation, the Delta Hospice Society and the B.C. Guide Dog Services have all written to the minister, telling her that the consequences of her tax blunder are disastrous.
Will the Finance Minister tell non-profits and charities today if they will be exempt from her new tax grab?
Hon. C. James: I’ll say again to the member that I’ve been having some very good conversations with many of the organizations around the province, including, in fact, this past Friday with some organizations from Delta, to talk about the issues that they are facing in the implementation.
That’s why we gave a year for the implementation — so we could make sure we gathered all that information, so we could take into account the 50 percent that organizations are saving on MSP, to be able to account for that. That’s the information we’re gathering, and those decisions are coming shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Delta South on a supplemental.
I. Paton: I’d like to read from the letter these groups have written to the minister: “Rather than raising our taxes, governments should be trying to make life easier for local non-profits.” This is a tax blunder that is causing fear and confusion, and it has gone on far long enough.
Again, to the minister — a simple yes-or-no response, please — will front-line non-profit organizations be kept whole like the Premier promised?
Hon. C. James: Happy to, once again, tell the member that the answers will be coming shortly. We are working with not-for-profits. We are working with charities. We are taking a look at the savings that they account for this year and next in the MSP, how we can make sure that that’s tracked. We’re looking at that, and answers will be coming shortly.
PROTECTION OF FARMLAND
FROM SPECULATION
AND
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
S. Furstenau: Our agricultural land has been left unprotected from the forces of speculation and foreign capital. Monster homes are being built on prime farmland, and farm prices are soaring well beyond the reach of our local farmers. We need immediate action from this government to protect our food security and to protect the ability of young farmers to get on the land.
There are a number of tools this government could use immediately to put a stop to that speculation on ALR land and protect the future for young farmers in B.C. Government can protect our farmland from the impact of foreign capital by restricting foreign ownership of ALR land, a step that our caucus has been calling for, for over a year. Government can apply the speculation tax and the foreign buyer tax to ALR land, and government can create legally binding house size limits to stop mega-mansions from being built on prime farmland.
My question is to the Minister of Finance. Will you commit today to using at least one of the measures at your disposal to put an end to mega-houses on the ALR?
Hon. L. Popham: Thank you to the member for raising this issue. The member raises valid concerns for sure. Many communities around the province are very concerned about large homes being built on the ALR and the uses that are happening on the ALR.
The one thing that building a monster home on the agricultural land reserve will almost guarantee is that a new farmer will not be able to afford that land to farm on. We’re very concerned about that, and that’s why, when we’ve taken on the agricultural land reserve revitalization project, we are getting feedback from people right across the province. Richmond has been in the news around this issue, but we’re hearing it from other communities. In fact, it was one of the top three issues that came to us within this consultation process.
We’re looking at the data that’s come in, and we’re using that to allow us to move forward on changes that will address this issue and also to make sure that the agricultural land reserve is stronger than it’s ever been.
Mr. Speaker: The House Leader, Third Party, on a supplemental.
S. Furstenau: I appreciate that there is a review of ALR land, but time is of the essence on this issue, and we cannot afford to wait another year before taking action to stop the building of these mega-houses on ALR land. As the Minister of Agriculture points out, it removes yet another farmer’s possibility from moving into food growing.
We need immediate measures to protect the dwindling stock of farmland and to protect our food security and protect the future of young farmers. Indeed, Richmond FarmWatch estimates that last year Richmond alone lost 50 farms due to the construction of mega-mansions on farmland. The government can take immediate interim measures to protect agricultural land while they wait for the results of the review.
My question is, again, to the Minister of Finance. Will she take immediate steps today to end speculation on ALR land and to protect our agricultural land for future generations?
Hon. L. Popham: Again, very valid concerns, and we are working as fast as we can. The revitalization committee wrapped up its consultation last week, and we are receiving the data that they received.
One of the things I think is very important is we’re doing things differently than the previous government did. What they did with the agricultural land reserve is they made legislative changes without consulting with British Columbia. We’ve gone out. We’ve consulted with the whole province. And we will make changes as we see fit.
I appreciate very much the member’s commitment to the agricultural land reserve and the commitment to farming. It’s incredibly important to our province as an economic driver. We need the agricultural land reserve in place in order to make sure that we have those opportunities.
We are working as quickly as possible. I know that we have a meeting booked with the Third Party in order to let them know what we heard during that consultation. I look forward to the discussions.
EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
IMPACTS AND
IMPLEMENTATION
M. Stilwell: The Society of Organized Services has operated in Parksville-Qualicum for over 50 years. On February 21, their executive director, Susanna Newton, wrote to the Minister of Finance: “The new payroll tax would cost us in excess of $43,000 over and above our current costs. Could you please confirm if this new payroll tax includes an exemption for B.C. non-profits and registered charities? If there is no exemption, this payroll tax will have a huge impact on our ability to maintain our existing programs and services.”
The question to the minister, on Susanna’s behalf, is: will charities be exempt?
Hon. C. James: Again to the member, I’ve been taking the opportunity to be able to work with not-for-profits, to work with charities, to have those discussions around the impact and the implementation. That’s why we’ve given a year to be able to look at the implementation, and those responses will be coming shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Parksville-Qualicum on a supplemental.
M. Stilwell: Well, I think it’s fantastic that the minister is taking the time to consult. She’s not taking time to respond to the email that Susanna wrote on February 21 and again on April 10. So she doesn’t have enough time to respond to a simple question.
Will the minister respond today and tell whether non-profits will be exempt from the tax?
Hon. C. James: I recognize the important work that’s being done. We’re having those conversations with individual not-for-profits and charities. We’re talking to groups and organizations across this province. That’s why we gave a year’s implementation. As I said when I delivered the budget, we were taking the time to make sure that we accounted for the savings for groups and organizations that pay MSP, because they are having savings this year and next. The answer will be coming shortly.
S. Cadieux: Well, it’s not just non-profits, of course, that have a limited ability to pay the NDP’s unexpected tax increase. It’s universities and colleges too. George Davidson, the president of the Federation of Post-Secondary Educators, says: “We should look at an exemption.”
To the Minister of Advanced Education, she must be hearing the same things that I am from these institutions and organizations. Has she conveyed these concerns to the Finance Minister?
Hon. C. James: In fact, I’ve been meeting directly with the universities and colleges, having those conversations, talking to them about the savings that they are having in ’18-19 and in ’19-20, how that gets applied and how we take that into account when it comes to the employers health tax. Answers will be shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Surrey South on a supplemental.
S. Cadieux: Post-secondary institutions are facing a significantly larger tax bill with the minister’s replacement of the MSP with the new higher tax. The additional cost for the University of Victoria alone is estimated to be at least $2½ million.
Will the minister exempt universities and colleges, or will they be forced to increase student fees and cut programming to accommodate?
Hon. C. James: Once again, we see from the other side a long litany, a long list, of the kinds of travesties that they brought on to British Columbians. Tuition doubled under the old government. That’s what they gave to post-secondary institutions, a doubling of tuition.
What else did the other side do? The other side decided to cut and insist that there are tuition costs for adult basic education, for English language learning. We eliminated tuition for English language learning and adult basic education. Not only that, we are actually providing free tuition for former children in care so they can have success like every other child in this province.
A lecture from the other side about the kinds of things that they did is not something that we’re going to listen to on this side. Instead, we are going to make sure that we provide support for British Columbians and savings on MSP. We’re having conversations with universities and colleges, and the answers will be coming shortly.
IMPACT OF EMPLOYER HEALTH TAX
ON SCHOOL
DISTRICTS
S. Bond: Hardly a lecture; simply another question.
Yesterday the Finance Minister finally provided some clarity for municipalities. No relief for them from the MSP replacement tax.
Let’s try for some additional clarity today. On September 24, the Minister of Education was asked if school districts should stay tuned for a potential exemption from the employer health tax. His response was yes. Well, now the B.C. School Trustees Association has passed a motion calling for new funding to fully cover the cost of the NDP’s new higher MSP replacement tax.
To the Education Minister, school districts continue to wait. Will he stand by his comment that school boards will soon receive an exemption?
Hon. C. James: It was students in British Columbia who had to wait 16 years for this government to end their fight that they picked with teachers in British Columbia instead of funding education, 16 years where children didn’t get the supports they needed, where they were in larger classes because of this government picking a fight with teachers. We are providing record levels of funding for education because we know how important it is. We are having those conversations with school districts, and the answers will be coming shortly.
Mr. Speaker: The member for Prince George–Valemount on a supplemental.
S. Bond: As a former school trustee, as is the Minister of Finance, she knows full well that students in British Columbia have the most exceptional outcomes in the world in terms of the work that’s done.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, we shall hear the question.
S. Bond: The opposition has asked dozens of questions about the NDP’s employer health tax on behalf of school districts, municipalities, non-profits, small businesses. The list goes on. The government, just like we see today, has been dismissive every single time. In fact, yesterday this Finance Minister looked municipalities in the eye and said their concerns didn’t matter. No relief in sight for them.
Today it’s not just school trustees. The B.C. Confederation of Parent Advisory Councils has also passed a resolution calling on the minister to ensure that school districts will be kept whole.
Again to the Minister of Education, will he finally address the concerns of trustees and, now, parents and fully fund the additional cost of the NDP’s surprise tax grab? Or will he continue to dismiss the concerns of parents and trustees?
Hon. C. James: If I were the other side, I wouldn’t be talking about education funding, because we know the record. Everyone in British Columbia knows the record. It was despite this government, which is why students succeeded because of the quality teachers and administrators and support staff in the province — because of their hard work.
We are continuing to work with groups and organizations. It’s why the payroll tax does not come into play until January 1, 2019. Just to give an example, the Sooke school district officials aren’t worried about covering the costs of the new payroll tax. They believe the elimination of medical service premiums will leave a small amount underfunded, and I don’t think our district will have a hard time coming up with it.
We recognize there are implementation issues. That’s why we’re taking the time to have those conversations. Decisions will be coming soon.
TRAFFIC ENFORCEMENT
AND FINE
REVENUES
T. Stone: To this point, we’ve yet to hear from the Minister of Municipal Affairs about the critical report on her government’s employer health tax from her largest stakeholder, the Union of B.C. Municipalities. But yesterday the Finance Minister’s message to communities was very, very clear: she doesn’t care. She doesn’t care about the impacts of the downloading of millions of dollars onto the backs of local governments and local taxpayers. She doesn’t care that property taxes are going to go up across this province. She doesn’t care that local services are going to be cut across British Columbia.
Now the NDP has also advised British Columbians that they’re bringing back photo radar 2.0 to a community near you. And the Finance Minister has already advised…. She has already advised….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, thank you. We shall hear the question.
T. Stone: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of Finance has already advised the Union of B.C. Municipalities that she intends to claw back that revenue from local communities too.
My question to the Minister of Municipal Affairs is this: will she ensure that traffic violation revenue stays where it belongs — with municipalities?
Hon. C. James: The member talks about municipalities and the challenge that they face. We are continuing, as I said, to have conversations with charities and not-for-profits. As I said yesterday, it’s up to the municipalities how they determine their budgets. But if we take a look at the net costs in 2020, after the elimination of MSP premiums and the implementation of the payroll tax….
If municipalities were to put that entire burden on households, on residential properties…. Just a few examples. For example, in Duncan, that would cost an average household, per year, 46 cents. In Kelowna, that would cost an average household $4.84 a year. In Lake Country, that would cost $1.43 per year. In Maple Ridge, $10.50 a year — that’s if they made the choice to put all of those costs onto municipal properties.
When you are saving $900 a year as individuals and $1,800 a year as a family, you are better off in British Columbia.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members.
The member for Kamloops–South Thompson on a supplemental.
T. Stone: Well, the minister would very likely get a ticket for speeding. She drove right past the question. The question was about photo radar.
Interjections.
T. Stone: Clearly, we’ve touched a nerve here. Photo radar 2.0, coming to a community near you — only under the NDP.
When the Attorney General recently introduced their photo radar program, he said….
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members, thank you.
T. Stone: The Attorney General said that “it was not a revenue generation piece” and that “revenues from tickets will go to local government.”
In fact, traffic violation revenue has gone exclusively to municipalities for the past 13 years. But the Minister of Finance has made it very clear that she’s going to grab this revenue.
Again to the Minister of Municipal Affairs, the person who’s actually responsible for local government in this province: will she stop this needless NDP cash grab and ensure that traffic violation revenues stay where they belong? And that’s with the municipalities.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I thank the member for this opportunity.
I’d like to make two points. The first is that with local governments…. They well know that there are changes in terms of how the red-light cameras are going to operate. What we have said is that we want to talk to them because of the new changes, which require no additional costs to municipalities. We want to discuss with them where that additional revenue goes.
We have indicated to them that there will be no change in the amount of revenue that they will continue to receive. There will be no change. But what I find really ironic, what I find particularly interesting, is that member over there using the term “cash grab” when they, when he was on this side of the House, plundered ICBC for almost $1.3 million.
While we’re on the topic of cash grab, how about at B.C. Hydro, where they took deferral accounts to a new level? They racked up, by plundering Hydro through deferral accounts, more than all of the other provinces combined.
In terms of cash grabs, who can forget the doubling of MSP premiums under that government when they sat on this side of the House? Who can forget the downloading that they placed on local government when they wouldn’t fund salary increases for teachers? Again, another cash grab put onto the backs of hard-working British Columbians.
Mr. Speaker: Thank you, Minister.
Hon. M. Farnworth: Finally, that member should not talk about speeding tickets.
Interjections.
Mr. Speaker: Members. Members.
M. Morris: The minister does as good a job in deflecting the question as a radar detector does in detecting radar going down the road there.
The NDP won’t say how much money they will rake in from the new photo radar program, but they’ve already told municipalities they intend to claw back the revenue.
The new employer health tax will already put the municipality of Prince George on the hook for an additional $1.3 million next year, and now traffic violation revenue of over $1.1 million will be clawed back. This puts programs in Prince George, like the radar speed camera display screens that we have in the high-traffic areas, at risk.
To the Minister of Municipal Affairs, will she admit she’s made a mistake and stop her needless cash grab?
Hon. M. Farnworth: I am a little surprised at that question coming from that member, because we’ve made it really clear that there will be no clawback of the revenue. More importantly, let’s look at what the purpose of these red-light camera activations is all about. Frankly, I hope there’s no increase in revenue. I hope that there’s no increase, because what we want is people to start to pay attention, to start driving safely.
I am sure that that member, when he was a police officer, more than once had to go knock on the door of somebody’s house and tell them tragic news because somebody had driven drunk, had sped through a red light or sped over a bridge at a very high speed and caused a tragic accident. That’s why those changes are taking place. That’s why it’s being done. And if we don’t see a single cent of increased revenue but we save lives because of that, I’ll be an extremely happy minister.
[End of question period.]
Tabling Documents
Mr. Speaker: Hon. Members, I have the honour to present a report intituled An Independent Audit of Executive Expenses at School District 61, from the Office of the Auditor General.
Orders of the Day
Hon. M. Farnworth: In this chamber, I call second reading, Bill 27, Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act. In Committee A, I call continued debate on the estimates of the Ministry of Children and Family.
[L. Reid in the chair.]
Second Reading of Bills
BILL 27 — PILL PRESS AND RELATED
EQUIPMENT CONTROL
ACT
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 27, intituled the Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act. I move that the bill now be read a second time.
It’s my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 27, the Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act. The proposed Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act is part of a suite of public safety initiatives we are working on to address the opioid crisis. This legislation is intended to help police interdict the illicit supply of counterfeit pills by limiting who can lawfully own a pill press or other equipment used to make illicit pills.
Beginning in 2012, British Columbia began to experience a significant increase in the number of deaths due to illicit drug overdose. The increased presence of fentanyl in the illicit drug supply is correlated with the driving up of the number of overdose-related deaths to 1,446 for 2017, more than five times the number of overdose-related deaths in 2012.
Pill presses are used in the production of pharmaceuticals, as well as a number of other goods. In the wrong hands, pill presses can be used to make low-cost fentanyl into counterfeit pills, such as fake oxycodone and Xanax, but quality control is poor, leading to overdose and death.
Not only are pill presses used to make counterfeit pills from fentanyl; they can also be used to make other dangerous, illicit pills, such as MDMA. In the case of fentanyl, there’s a large profit motive for dealers to make counterfeit pills. Prior to this legislation, there had been no limits on who could own this equipment in B.C.
Restricting access to pill presses is seen as a key tool to help interdict the supply of illicit drugs. The Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act will limit who can lawfully own a pill press or other like equipment such as encapsulators or pharmaceutical mixers. This equipment is known as controlled equipment under the act.
Those with a legitimate business or professional purpose for having controlled equipment will be amongst the group of authorized owners. Authorized owners include those authorized under an enactment to manufacture drugs or natural health food products, health professionals named in regulation or a licensed pharmacy.
Those who are outside of this group but who have a legitimate business requirement for the equipment can apply for and be granted a waiver to be included amongst the group of authorized owners. There is no intention to impede access to this equipment for those with a legitimate business or professional need for it.
There is no requirement to seek permission to acquire new equipment from within the province or from outside it. Instead, the legislation permits building a registry of equipment through notifications to the registrar regarding ownership of equipment as well as its acquisition, sale, loss or destruction.
Another feature of this legislation is the requirement for pill press sellers to be registered under the act. Registration will involve making an application to the registrar and agreeing to submit to a criminal record check.
A registrar will be appointed under the act to administer it. The registrar will be given a number of powers, including the ability to appoint inspectors and collect personal information. The registrar can register those who apply to be pill press sellers and will be able to grant waivers to those who need equipment for a business purpose not contemplated in the act.
The legislation also creates authorities for information-sharing with police for the purpose of administering this act, as well as with other jurisdictions with a like statute.
Given that we are one of the first jurisdictions in Canada to create this type of legislation, a key feature of the act will be its flexibility. The registrar will have authority to waive or modify requirements under the act, and there are regulation-making powers to add or modify equipment or set new classes of persons who can be among the group of authorized owners of the equipment.
The act provides for a comprehensive list of offences with significant penalties. A key example of an offence is the prohibition regarding unlawful ownership, possession or use of controlled equipment. The penalties are high, as they are intended to have a significant deterrent value. They include a maximum of a $200,000 fine for a first offence, a $350,000 fine for a second offence and a $500,000 fine for a third offence or six months’ jail time or both.
The key benefits of the legislation include limiting ownership of pill presses and related equipment to those who need it for lawful business or professional purposes; creating a minimal administrative burden on lawful owners; authorizing police to seize equipment from those who are not authorized to have it, without waiting for it to be used by organized crime or drug dealers to make illegal pills; and setting high penalties intended to have significant deterrent value.
The Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act should be seen as one of many of the tools needed to be put in place for the public safety sector to address the opioid crisis. I’m pleased to open debate on this important piece of legislation.
M. Morris: Looking at the legislation, I do understand the impetus behind the introduction of this particular bill, but I do have some questions. I’ll leave a lot of the questions for the committee stage.
The frustrating thing for police officers and those that are investigating these kinds of offences right across Canada is oftentimes we see duplications of various statutes, which leads to a little bit of confusion when it comes to prosecution, when it comes to search and seizure.
You could be conducting an investigation under a federal statute, and all of a sudden, there are some provincial implications involved here. So as we move forward through that, I will be looking at the possibilities of that confusion when it comes to the investigative level.
What I refer to…. The Controlled Drugs and Substances Act is the statute that the police use right across the country when they’re dealing with fentanyl, the importation of any kinds of illegal substances or drugs that we have in the country, including cannabis. We’ll be doing lots of discussion on that in the days ahead, coming down the road here.
Section 7 of the federal legislation pretty much outlines a lot of the things that this legislation speaks about as well. It says: “No person shall possess, produce, sell, import or transport anything intending that it will be used (a) to produce a controlled substance, unless the production of the controlled substance is lawfully authorized; or (b) to traffic in a controlled substance.” It’s a very broad section that covers the possession of pill presses or any other device that might be used in the production of those types of things.
The act further goes on to describe the importation of those types of designated devices, and the pill presses are a designated device under the CDSA, the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act. It says: “No person shall import into Canada a designated device unless they register the importation with the Minister.”
One of the concerns I have with the legislation the way it’s written right now is the creation of a second bureaucracy. The lawful importation of the devices by pharmacies, by anybody that legally uses those kinds of devices to produce pills or vitamins or whatever the case might be…. There’s a federal bureaucracy that they need to adhere to. They need to register the importation with the minister, and there’s a lot of information that’s collected as a result of that.
Now we’re creating a provincial bureaucracy as well. So the lawful importation…. You know, the pharmacy down the road brings this device in, registers it with the federal government and now has to do it a second time to register under the provincial legislation here — increased bureaucracy. I’m wondering whether or not we’ll get the bang for our buck out of that.
The information they need to obtain, looking at the substance of the bill that’s before the House here right now, is much the same as the substance that’s in the federal legislation: the name of the person importing the device; the corporation name that’s registered within the province; the person’s address; the description of the designated device, including the model number and serial number; the address where the device will be located as well as the street address where it’s going to be delivered to; the name and address of the customs office where the importation is anticipated; and the anticipated date of the importation.
Once all that is gathered and collected, the minister receives the information, and he shall register the product and “provide proof of the registration to the person importing the…device.” It goes on further to talk about the disclosure of information, the federal legislation.
The federal legislation allows the minister to disclose to the Canada Border Services Agency all the information that they collect, but section 7 also authorizes the disclosure to police services across the province, so across the country. “The Minister is authorized to disclose any information submitted under subsection (2) to a Canadian police force or a member of a Canadian police force who requests the information in the course of an investigation under this Act.”
Again, there are provisions to share that information that’s collected in the registry by all the various police departments in the country here. So bureaucracy, added workload for legitimate users of this — and at the end of the day, are we going to see a substantial benefit from the black market? The black market is never going to register these kinds of devices. They’re going to try to smuggle these devices into Canada, as they have for years and years already, as they do with all the other types of illegal devices and drugs into Canada.
There are already provisions under this federal legislation to seize those kinds of devices during the course of an investigation. So again, a little bit of duplication here. It’s perhaps overkill, but we’ll see how it works out at the end of the day.
The other concern that I have with this added bureaucracy and this second layer is the cost of administering this particular statute, in this legislation now. I understand that there is already an entity in place that will look after the registration of these products, but they will require additional resources for enforcement or follow-up, so there will be a cost to that.
I’m also curious as to…. The federal legislation is relatively new. It was just passed in the House of Commons about a year ago, I believe. There is relatively new legislation in Alberta that I don’t think has been tested yet, and we’re implementing this duplication of the federal legislation.
I’m just wondering. There are going to be challenges made against the federal legislation, I’m sure. There will be challenges made against the Alberta legislation. And no doubt there will be challenges made against the provincial legislation that we have in British Columbia here, and that is going to be added costs to our court services and administration, as well as the enforcement of these kinds of things.
Overall, we’re going to support the bill. It covers all the bases. There’s no question about it, Minister. It does cover the bases, but I think it’s an added bureaucracy. I think it’s something that is probably a little bit premature, pending the outcome of the federal legislation and the challenges that it may see down the road. If there are weaknesses in the federal legislation, perhaps a request to the federal government to amend the legislation — to address those weaknesses that have been identified in this particular legislation — is a good thing.
One of the weaknesses that I see with the provincial legislation — and I spoke about it before when we were in government, when I was in the chair — is the fact that it’s restricted to British Columbia, and we have no authority to dictate what happens outside of the boundaries of British Columbia.
I think that by having that blanket, effective federal legislation provides a greater tool, a greater opportunity, for police officers in British Columbia and right across Canada to curtail those kinds of activities, to seize those types of devices and hopefully reduce the amount of fentanyl and carfentanil and the other types of drugs that are entering our system at ease through the production of all these pills.
At the end of the day, it’s good legislation, it’s comprehensive legislation, but it’s a duplication of a lot of the things that are going on provincially and federally.
There are a lot of other technical details within that legislation that I’ll reserve for the committee stage, but overall, I think the minister’s staff have done a pretty good job of putting this together. We’ll just see how it shakes out at the end of the day, and what it’s going to cost taxpayers at the end of the day, and how much confusion it may present to law enforcement agencies trying to separate the provincial from the federal types of legislation.
S. Furstenau: Bill 27, the Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act, serves to restrict and regulate the ownership, possession and use of equipment that can be used to mass-produce illicit drugs. This equipment includes automated pill presses, gelcap machines and pharmaceutical mixers. It does not, however, include manual hand presses and manual encapsulators, which do not have the capacity for mass production.
This legislation was one of the top priorities requested of the Solicitor General by law enforcement, and it stipulates that legitimate users of pill press equipment must register their machines and undergo a criminal record check. Similarly, those wishing to buy or sell a machine must be registered. Illegitimate use of pill press equipment is thus criminalized with steep penalties invoked for offences and increased search and seizure power for police.
This act hopes that these provisions will address the scale of British Columbia’s drug crisis. There were nearly 1,500 overdose deaths in B.C. last year, and fentanyl was detected in 81 percent of those deaths. The intent of this legislation is to provide a means of interrupting drug circulation prior to its consumption.
Although this legislation offers a useful tool for law enforcement, it is essential that we ask how we are going to create a massive suite of solutions to the opioid crisis that we face in our province. Crackdowns on certain aspects of the manufacturing process will not ensure that drugs are no longer manufactured. Similarly, it will not deter the amount of drugs being imported into our province.
It is useful and important to address the drug crisis at its root. This tabled legislation provides a top-down approach that gives more strength to law enforcement and hopes that steep penalties for offences will act as a deterrent, and this is a good step. More importantly, we should be focused on why people are driven to participate in the illicit drug industry, and address the social and economic factors that influence their involvement in drug distribution and manufacture. Focusing on the equipment alone overlooks the systemic and complex nature of the issue.
While we are going to support this bill, and we see it as a step, let’s continue, as legislators, to focus where our attention is most needed. We need to recognize that the opioid crisis, the overdose crisis in this province, is linked to a far greater social problem that we have and that we need to look at solutions to address the root of that problem, not just the symptoms.
J. Thornthwaite: I’m happy to be able to respond on second reading to Bill 27, entitled the Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act, which restricts the ownership, possession, use and sale of equipment that may be used to make unlawful drugs. This is an attempt from British Columbia to crack down on pill presses in a bid to ease the ongoing opioid overdose crisis gripping our province.
The member from Prince George has already talked about what he’s going to bring up in the committee stage, with regards to the technical issues that need to be addressed. I thought that I would mention things, similar to the member for Cowichan Valley…. I’m referring to the coroner’s report.
There were 102 suspected drug overdose deaths in February 2018, this year. It comes to about 3.6 deaths per day of the month. This has been an ongoing trend for a while — four people a day in this province. In total, there were just about 1,500 deaths in the year of 2017. This issue is not going away any time soon.
As the member from Cowichan had mentioned, this does not get to the root of the problem — why people are using drugs to begin with and the pain they may be going through. People who cannot find or receive love in their families or in their communities need to find substitutes, and that’s where addictions come in.
I read this book. It’s called In the Realm of Hungry Ghosts by Dr. Gabor Maté. I would recommend for anybody to pick this up if they have any interest at all in mental health, addictions and recovery. He says that addictions actually start in the womb and that injection drug use, more often than not, arises in people who were abused and neglected as young children.
The addict, in other words, is not born but made. His addiction is the result of a situation he had no influence in creating. The prevention of substance abuse needs to begin, actually, in the crib, and even before then, in the social recognition that nothing is more important for the future of our culture than the way children develop. And there has to be much more support for pregnant women.
But there is hope. People are resilient, and with the right help and treatment, recovery is possible, sustainable and attainable. We know, all of us know, many people that have been and are going through recovery.
Going on to what the Dr. Gabor Maté has said, the only way they can escape drug addictions is if their pain is alleviated and their emotions are brought back to healthy balance so that they have time to think about it. It requires a complex, supportive social environment.
Yes, we will be supporting this bill. But I implore this government to put a better priority on the prevention, the treatment and the continuum of care that leads to recovery so that all people will be able to be treated with, and feel, respect in this province, and we won’t need this bill eventually.
N. Simons: I just rise to express my support for Bill 27, the Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act. I acknowledge and respect the words of my colleagues, who spoke to the issue of prevention and treatment and all the important ancillary acts that we take as legislators to address this.
I would say that it is absolutely true: we need to be addressing the root causes. Those include poverty and abuse and exposure to circumstances in life that have created problems that are resulting in a person self-medicating. But I would just say that while we address those issues, we also need to address some of the other factors. Pill presses are just one of the many things that we can try to have some control over.
It’s like saying we know people speed. It’s the behaviour that needs to change, but that doesn’t mean we focus only on the behaviour and stop doing the enforcement. We still need to take full advantage of the authority that we have to control the use of pill press manufacturing.
I would say that it could be characterized — this legislation has been characterized — as duplication. But I would say it’s redoubling an effort that needs to be done. We need to take all measures within our authority to address this extremely troubling trend in our communities. Knowing families who’ve lost loved ones, knowing people who have been affected by overdose, knowing people who have died from drug overdoses, I think, is the wind in the sails of the legislators to push them towards finding a range of solutions. I believe this to be one of those tools.
We don’t have a lot of evidence to say what works completely. We have examples of things that do work. I’m pleased to say that our government has been at the forefront of addressing those by the establishment of a Mental Health and Addictions Ministry. I think it reconfirms our government’s position when it comes to mental health and addiction, and it shows we are interested in a full range of services for people who find themselves in a situation where their health is impacted by their mental health condition or their addictions.
The Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act is an important and necessary item, an ingredient in the list of ingredients that we need to put into the mix to address the opioid crisis in British Columbia. I wholeheartedly support this legislation.
S. Gibson: I appreciate the opportunity to speak to this legislation. I think we realize it’s propitious that this legislation comes before this House. Tragically, we wish it were not necessary, but it is the case.
As a matter of fact, if we look at the number of tragedies, fentanyl tragedies, over this year and last, we see an ominous trend. As a matter of fact, Vancouver Coastal Health reports, in the last few weeks of April, street drugs at higher levels of fentanyl than before. We can see it’s 74 percent higher than the weekly average of the previous year.
One of the tragedies, I feel, when I look at the need for this legislation, is that a huge number — 90 percent, tragically — of folks die at home, suffering an overdose. Four out of five were men, and half the victims were between the ages of 30 and 49. And 911 calls routed through the system report that paramedics responded to 250 overdose calls in a week in comparing it to a previous week. You can see that the total calls for service are dramatically rising. So yes, we will be supporting this bill, but there are some queries that probably should be addressed.
The federal government has a role in this enterprise as well. They’re watching over these machines, regulating the machines — tableting machines and encapsulators — since May of last year. They’ve been doing this for about a year.
When I look at this, I wonder: is there going to be some redundancy, a duplication of the regulations? It is something to bring to the government’s attention. I also wonder how legitimate operators and police will navigate a new layer of the provincial bureaucracy. If there are loopholes that the provincial government wishes to address, that’s laudable indeed.
A few technical questions. We see a trend, I think, a little bit, if I may make a note of concern. As we look at the bill, you can see there’s a reliance on cabinet making decisions, making some changes, which perhaps is understandable. But the concern, of course, is that with anything like this, you’re going to get legislation being moderated or adjusted privately and less in the public domain, which may cause some concern.
This may also be explained by the relationship with the Third Party, but I don’t know that. I’m just speculating. Trying to have transparency and openness, I think, is desirable.
My understanding is that this legislation is quite a bit more extensive and has more detail than a similar one in Alberta brought forward. I’ll be interested in knowing whether the minister had any kind of expectation that the Alberta experience would benefit us.
What are the costs of administering the act? Has there been some plan to look at convictions, arrests and how those would be budgeted for, in terms of the legal process? Those lawful operators of the pill presses — how will they be affected? I know they have to register their equipment, but apparently, there’s no on-line procedure to register. So it looks like there’s going to be mail involved, which is a bit anachronistic. Will they have to travel to community centres such as Vancouver and Victoria? I don’t know about that. That seems not to be identified. It may be useful for the minister to investigate that.
Records have to be kept. I think we understand the reason for that. But how long will they be required? Five years? Indefinitely? We don’t really know. And verifications, the valid permit — what constitutes that?
There’s a black market here worth millions, probably tens of millions, and a lot of issues with identification, registries, permits. So with the criminality involved, this legislation, indeed, is timely. But what kind of regulations will have to be developed? I guess the other question is: how will we deal with violators? It seems to be still something that needs to be honed.
My summary is that I think government is on the right track with this. It’s understandable, unfortunate. I might add that in my own communities of Abbotsford and Mission, the two communities I represent here in the Legislature…. There is concern, as well, outside Metro — indeed, provincewide. Yes, I think that we’ll feel comfortable with this, notwithstanding some of the remarks I’ve made. I’ll close my remarks here.
Deputy Speaker: Seeing no further speakers, the minister closes debate.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I want to thank the members for their comments and the questions that the members across the way have posed. A number of them we’ll obviously deal with during committee stage. But I just want to make closing comments on some of the broader, general issues.
The reason that this legislation has been brought forward is because we do have a crisis here in British Columbia. There is a requirement for additional tools. The member is correct that the federal government did bring in legislation.
One of the things we’ve done since becoming minister in this portfolio is…. In meeting with the police and meeting with the RCMP, they identified some significant loopholes that they said really do need to be plugged, and that’s part of the genesis of this legislation. We did work with the police on this to identify what those loopholes are and how they can be plugged. That’s why I’m confident that they will be able to deal with the issue on the federal side of the provincial legislation, because they’ve had input in terms of where the issues are.
The other issue that goes to some comments the member just made is around…. The penalty system in this is administrative as opposed to a criminal conviction. So the administrative penalty is easier to do, and it comes with a significant financial deterrent.
The comments from the member from the North Shore…. Absolutely, this is not intended to solve the crisis. That is a very complex issue that requires significant investments in prevention and in treatment and looking at doing things differently than we have done in the past. That’s why the government created the Ministry of Mental Health and Addictions to spearhead that fight and to lead that charge.
Along with prevention, along with treatment, there is also that need to deal with the criminal element, the enforcement side of things, and that’s what this piece of legislation is intended to do. There are people in this province right now who are selling these things. They know what they are being used for. They are preying on those with addictions. They are dealing in death, and they know it. All they care about is a profit.
There have been stories — we have seen them in the media — where they advertise. They go on social media, because they know they weren’t able to be touched. They weren’t doing anything illegal. Even with the federal legislation, they’re still able to do it, and that’s why this piece of legislation is intended to plug some of those loopholes.
I want to thank all members for their comments in the second reading debate, and I look forward to being able to deal with the questions, legitimate questions that have been asked by the opposition, at committee stage.
With that, hon. Speaker, I move second reading.
Motion approved.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole House to be considered at the next sitting after today.
Bill 27, Pill Press and Related Equipment Control Act, read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole House for consideration at the next sitting of the House after today.
Hon. M. Farnworth: I call second reading of Bill 17, intituled the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018.
BILL 17 — MOTOR VEHICLE
AMENDMENT ACT,
2018
Hon. M. Farnworth: I move that the bill now be read a second time.
It is my pleasure to rise today to speak about Bill 17, the Motor Vehicle Amendment Act, 2018. This bill proposes amendments to the Motor Vehicle Act to address concerns that the legalization of non-medical cannabis will negatively impact road safety in this province. The changes proposed in this bill will establish foundational pieces of an administrative regime to deter, detect and sanction drivers in this province whose driving is affected by cannabis or other drugs.
A key proposed change introduces a zero-tolerance rule with respect to the presence of THC, the psychoactive ingredient in cannabis, for drivers in the graduated licensing program. This means that new drivers who operate a motor vehicle with any presence of THC in their system, as detected by way of federally authorized and approved drug-screening equipment, would be subject to an immediate roadside licence suspension, a fine and driver penalty points. The same is in place now for any presence of alcohol in these drivers.
These sanctions for new drivers would also trigger an automatic review of their driving record, resulting in a possible driving prohibition of up to six months for a first contravention and requiring a driver to remain in a graduated licensing program for a much longer period of time.
This change was a key finding from the province’s public and stakeholder engagement on cannabis regulation, and with it comes a clear message. New drivers in this province must completely separate alcohol and cannabis consumption from their driving or be prepared to face serious consequences.
A further key change in this bill would establish a new 90-day administrative driving prohibition for drug-affected driving. This change would authorize a prohibition where a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that a driver operating a motor vehicle while having a blood drug concentration that was equal to or exceeded a prescribed blood drug concentration, or a driver operating a motor vehicle while having a concentration of alcohol and a drug that was equal to or exceeded both a prescribed blood alcohol and blood drug concentration, or a driver’s ability to operate a motor vehicle is impaired by a drug or a combination of a drug and alcohol, as determined through an evaluation by a police drug recognition expert, or a driver failed or refused to comply with a demand made by a peace officer under the Criminal Code.
This new 90-day prohibition is a key tool for police. It removes drivers from B.C. roads beyond the 24-hour period currently permitted under the act. Moreover, police will be authorized to serve the prohibition concurrent with pursuing any charges for impaired driving under the Criminal Code.
The final component of these proposed amendments seeks to modernize the Motor Vehicle Act to harmonize it with the changes in federal Bill C-46, which proposes a complete rewrite of the impaired driving and other transportation-related sections of the Criminal Code. The amendments to harmonize with Bill C-46 include updating section references to the Criminal Code contained throughout the Motor Vehicle Act, creating an authority to prescribe motor vehicle–related Criminal Code offences by regulation, and other consequential and housekeeping changes necessary to ensure consistency between federal and provincial law.
I want to make a few closing remarks about some challenges related to the issue of drugs and driving. It is somewhat rare to be standing before this House and speaking to proposed changes to provincial law that are dependent on federal legislation that has not yet passed. But Bill C-46, which proposes new impaired driving offences, as well as new investigative tools and authorities for police, is still before the Senate of Canada. A further issue is the federal commitment in respect of police training and equipment. Discussions continue, and the details have not yet been finalized.
With the legalization of non-medical cannabis looming, this is not an ideal situation. It is also not a situation unique to British Columbia. Jurisdictions across this country are all rushing to address the monumental changes that are flowing from this legislation. They are significant, and the time frame under which we are operating is extremely tight and has caused frustration not only for provinces but for law enforcement right across the country.
While this bill represents an important first step in B.C. to address concerns about drugs and driving, the work must not stop here. What we know about drugs and their impairing effects on driving is going to evolve as new tools, technology, research and data become available. There will surely be case law that will impact the changes to the Criminal Code, as well as changes to provincial administrative regimes. Without a doubt, whenever there’s legislation of this nature, with the changes contemplated both federally and then that flow from the province having to synchronize with the federal, you can bet your bottom dollar there are going to be many billable hours.
I also know that support for police training and equipment will continue to be a pressing topic with our counterparts at the federal level. We view it as crucial. It is an issue that we have raised in discussions with the federal government and with our federal and provincial and territorial colleagues right across the country.
Accordingly, I know we can expect further changes in the near future that will build off of the foundational amendments proposed in this bill. Drug-impaired driving is a serious public safety concern. We believe that this first phase of amendments strikes the right balance between public safety and administrative fairness. And as we’ve learned from the decades-long struggle to address alcohol-impaired driving, it is critical that we send a strong message right from the start.
We must work together with our federal counterparts to ensure that police have the tools and resources they need to keep roads safe and that we continue to educate the public about the dangers of impaired driving, whether by alcohol or by drugs.
To that end, the changes proposed in this bill underscore a simple but important message that all of us have a responsibility to continue to deliver. When you choose to mix alcohol or drugs with driving, you’re putting your life and the lives of others at risk, and it is not going to be tolerated.
M. Morris: I’ll be supporting this bill as well. I know the minister and his staff have done a lot of work on this. The IRP, or immediate roadside prohibition, program in British Columbia has been noted right across the country for the effectiveness. Since the time that we implemented the legislation, when we were in government years ago, there has been over a 50 percent reduction in the fatalities caused by impaired driving because of the effectiveness of this legislation.
It only stands to reason that it be amended to reflect the changes that are coming from the federal government. I know the legislation is tied up in the Senate right now, and we’ve been waiting with bated breath for a long time. It has caused some consternation. So by amending the legislation now and preparing for the future….
Drug impairment is nothing new. Drug impairment has been around long before I retired from the RCMP and has caused fatalities and has caused complications. This recognizes that, and this gives it a little bit more teeth for police officers to address when they’re conducting their activities out on the road.
The level of impairment. There are a lot of technical things. As the minister referred to, there are still a lot of technical details that have to be worked out as to what constitutes impairment with THC. But I go back to some basic skills that police officers have right across the country.
When you’re driving down the road on patrol, you’re looking for those vehicles that are weaving or driving inconsistently, that are exhibiting some driving behaviour that is warranting a second look. The police officers will note that, and they will pull the vehicle over, and there will be a strong smell of alcohol emanating from the interior of the vehicle. So they conduct some sobriety tests. They might have a roadside screening device for alcohol, and they will determine that the person is impaired and subsequently carry on forward with their impaired driving charge.
The same applied for years with drugs. You pull somebody over, and as soon as the door opens, the blue smoke comes wafting out of the interior of the vehicle, and the driver is obviously stoned. There is a series of sobriety tests that the police officer will conduct on that individual, but in addition to that, there is also….
Years ago the police forces across Canada implemented a drug recognition expert training program. I tell you from experience…. I was never trained to that level, but I know from experience that these are very highly trained individuals that can look at an individual, and after monitoring a few factors and conducting a series of tests, they can determine whether the person is high on THC or opiates or some other type of drug. That’s on the impaired driving part.
Go back to the office, get a blood test, do a demand under the Criminal Code, and you prosecute the person through that process. What we’re talking about here is the immediate roadside prohibition and the 90-day suspension, which I think is definitely going to get the attention of a lot of drivers out there that take their chances. So that’s where the drug recognition experts are going to be earning their keep.
Right now I know there have been a number of devices that are being tested for bodily fluids to determine the level of THC or the presence of THC in the system, as are other drugs. We just have to determine what that level is. But the drug recognition expert will be part and parcel to that IRP decision so that we can say with certainty that that individual is driving under the impairment of THC.
The problem that the minister will be facing, has already addressed and is already concerned about is the fact that we don’t have near enough drug recognition experts trained in British Columbia or across Canada. It’s going to be an impact on our municipalities. It’s going to be an impact on the police forces across Canada to ensure that these resources are trained. Of course, as we take these people away and train them, there are going to be vacancies. There will be overtime costs. There will be an exponential increase in the costs of doing business as a police officer in British Columbia.
I do like the fact that the minister has alluded to a zero tolerance for THC for new drivers, much the same as the alcohol side of that. I know there were some jurisdictions, I think perhaps New Zealand and Australia, that had looked at zero tolerance — period — for THC in the blood for driving. I don’t know how that has settled at the end of the day and whether there have been some challenges there that will prohibit them from going forward on that. The zero tolerance for new drivers is important.
The other aspect that police officers are going to be wrestling with and the ministry will be wrestling with is secondhand smoke. We might have a driver that says: “I’ve never touched the stuff. I don’t smoke it myself, but everybody else in the car was smoking it that day. I’m the designated driver.”
It’s a little bit different than alcohol, where if somebody in the back seat is drinking a beer, it doesn’t really affect the driver. But now we’ve got somebody in the back seat puffing on a marijuana cigarette, and the driver is getting the benefit of that as well. That’s another technicality that is going to be wrestled with as we move forward with the legislation. There will be some changes there.
I recognize…. When we were still in government and I had the file, I was looking at that file, and I could see the problems associated with this file. Probably it was a little bit…. I appreciate the workload that the minister has taken on after I’d seen all of the early problems that were starting to surface from that. Having said that, we will be supporting the bill. There are a couple of technical things that we’ll probably talk about as we go through.
I know we’d like to continue speaking on this, but noting the hour, I move that we adjourn debate and reserve our right to speak again on this.
M. Morris moved adjournment of debate.
Motion approved.
Committee of Supply (Section A), having reported resolution, was granted leave to sit again.
Hon. M. Farnworth moved adjournment of the House.
Motion approved.
Deputy Speaker: This House, at its rising, stands adjourned until 1:30 this afternoon.
The House adjourned at 11:52 a.m.
PROCEEDINGS IN THE
DOUGLAS FIR ROOM
Committee of Supply
ESTIMATES: MINISTRY OF
CHILDREN AND
FAMILY DEVELOPMENT
(continued)
The House in Committee of Supply (Section A); S. Chandra Herbert in the chair.
The committee met at 11:07 a.m.
On Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,792,612,000 (continued).
Hon. K. Conroy: Just before I start, we have some answers to some questions from yesterday that I want to give to the member. A follow-up from yesterday is in response to the question about how many Indigenous children were placed in Indigenous homes. Of the 243 children that were placed for adoption last year, 114 children were Indigenous. As I mentioned, this is a preliminary number as we finalize last year’s adoption placements information. Of that 114 number, 28 percent, 32 of them, were adopted into Indigenous homes. Again, this is preliminary information.
Then, on the number of children available for adoption, we’ve got updated numbers as of April. Yesterday we had them just until the end of December. As I noted yesterday, there were 1,260 children eligible for adoption during the fiscal year. As of April 9, 2018, there are 985 children who are available for adoption. Of these children, 38 children are on proposal status, which means a family has been identified and a plan is in place to have the child placed in their home.
Then 242 children are in foster-to-adopt situations, and for 705 children, we are seeking homes. In some circumstances, assessments are being completed as to the needs of the children so that they’re fully understood before a potential home is identified.
I also wanted to make sure I introduced staff today. I neglected to yesterday. So Philip Twyford, our EFO; Teresa Dobmeier, our ADM for service delivery; Cory Heavener, our ADM and provincial director of child welfare; Denise Devenny, executive lead for Indigenous engagement; Cheryl May, ADM for policy and legislation; Catherine Talbott, our ED for strategic initiatives; Christine Massey, our ADM for early years and inclusion; and our deputy minister, Allison Bond. All are here to answer the members’ questions.
L. Throness: Thank you to the minister for that update. I’m going to surrender the floor to the member for Prince George–Valemount for a question.
S. Bond: Thank you to my colleague for allowing me a few minutes to ask some questions. I want to speak with the minister about an issue that is incredibly important to people across British Columbia, but certainly in my part of the province as well.
I’m hopeful the minister is aware of this file. There is a group of very dedicated people in Prince George, service providers and others, brought together with the leadership of someone I have enormous admiration for. Sharon Hurd, who works with the Phoenix Transition Society, is a tireless worker on behalf of women, supporting them in our community through Phoenix and many other ways.
There is an opportunity for the Ministry of Children and Families to be a partner in a program that would help to support women who have mental illness and addictions. Currently there is a pilot project in Prince George called Harmony House. It began in 2017. It’s funded by the Vancouver Foundation. It does offer services to pregnant and addicted women. However, there is significant need.
The reason that I’m here in front of this minister is because, apparently, the Ministry of Children and Families owns several buildings that this particular group of people would very much like to see repurposed. In fact, the letter was sent to the minister in April.
I’m going to quote from that letter: “There is a place in Prince George that could open the doors almost immediately if the Ministry of Children and Families and the government are willing to work with this community group. It is the youth containment centre and Bowron House on the property. A group of us have requested a tour. Bowron House sits next to the youth containment centre.” I won’t go into those specific details.
First, is the minister aware of the request and the fact that the message being conveyed back to these individuals is that the ministry is not interested in repurposing those buildings?
Hon. K. Conroy: I thank the member for the question. The ministry is very interested in repurposing. In fact, we’ve had a number of requests from a number of different agencies in the community, as well as from different government ministries, that have expressed interest in using, especially, Bowron House.
I’d be happy to discuss this further with the member when we can plan a time.
S. Bond: I appreciate the minister’s response, and I appreciate her willingness to look at this. There is an absolute demand for additional service for women in northern British Columbia.
As I’m sure the minister is aware, we are the home of Baldy Hughes, which provides a therapeutic environment and treatment for men. I have visited there many times, and I am an incredible supporter of that program.
I’m encouraged that the minister would meet with us. I would only reflect on, first of all, the incredible group of people who are interested in this proposal. I would ask that the minister look at the letter. It was laid out very clearly in terms of a potential use for the facility.
I guess I would like to just look at a potential example of that. In View Royal, there is currently a repurposing underway. It was a youth detention centre there — looking at exactly a similar type of program for youth, in this circumstance. So I think it isn’t unprecedented, and I think there are role models that exist.
I know the group is feeling somewhat frustrated. They have written to the Premier, to everyone they could think of, to actually talk about meaningful service, an expansion of programs where there are very, very exceptional professionals who could help provide support.
I want to be very cognizant of my colleague’s time and the need he has to finish the questions. So with that, I’ll thank the minister.
I would hope that there would be an effort to reach out to the organization, particularly through Sharon Hurd, to have meaningful conversation about a building that’s sitting empty and that with relatively little renovation, could provide enormous support to women who are struggling in northern B.C.
I appreciate the minister’s time and her interest in this file.
L. Throness: I want to continue talking about adoption and foster care in the last half-hour I have, because that really lies at the heart of what the minister does. I want to bring back something that she said yesterday.
I’m happy that the backlog is not larger than it was last year, although I’d point out that April 9 is a week after the end of the fiscal year, which is the usual way of counting statistics, so probably it was in her interest to do so. I’ll be interested to see what it was as of March 31, when the performance report comes around.
The minister suggested yesterday that First Nations really don’t want adoption as much as we thought, which implies that she can relax on adoption, and that might explain why adoptions are down 20 percent this year. I don’t think that’s really acceptable.
I want to quote to her a recommendation of the Ed John report, which said this: “MCFD develop, in partnership with Indigenous communities, a provincial adoption awareness and recruitment strategy that includes a specific focus on recruiting more Indigenous adoptive parents from the communities of origin of the Indigenous children in care.”
How is the minister doing on this recommendation? What is she doing about that?
Hon. K. Conroy: In October 2017, a recruitment campaign was launched to gain more Indigenous adoption homes. It was directly in response to Grand Chief Ed John’s report — specifically, recommendation 46, which says: “MCFD to develop, in partnership with Indigenous communities, a provincial adoption awareness and recruitment strategy that includes a specific focus on recruiting more Indigenous adoptive parents from the Indigenous communities of origin of Indigenous children.” As I said, that’s recommendation 46 from that excellent report that we are still using to move forward on.
The specific actions included in this campaign are in response to this recommendation. The ministry has funded the lifelong connections adoption and permanency recruitment campaign.
This project is a collaborative project that was coordinated by the Adoptive Families Association of B.C. and stewarded by several Indigenous and Métis child and family-serving organizations in B.C., including the Indigenous Perspectives Society, the Métis Nation B.C., the Métis Commission for Children and Families of B.C., the Vancouver Aboriginal Child and Families Services Society, the Ktunaxa-Kinbasket Child and Family Services, the Nezul Be Hunuyeh Child and Family Services, the Scw’exmx Child and Family Services Society and the Northwest Inter-Nation Family and Community Services Society.
Eight projects received funding. Examples of the innovative projects proposed included an art installation created by elders, youth and a local artist; and a bus tour to educate band, civic and community leaders about what it means to be a child in care and why there is an urgent need for permanent homes for these children.
The fund awarded a total of approximately $80,000 to 18 First Nations, Inuit and Métis child and family-serving organizations from Chilliwack to Fort St. James, from Golden to Bella Coola.
The fund’s goals were to support community-based initiatives that educate people about how they can provide permanency to kids in care and to get more First Nations, Inuit and Métis families involved in meeting this need.
A new campaign is currently being developed that is informed by young adults that were formerly in care. This is just the beginning of this initiative.
L. Throness: Troubling to the opposition is that in the last fiscal year, the ministry received $3 million extra for adoption, but the results are still lagging by almost 20 percent. That’s not a little. That’s a lot. What did the minister do with that $3 million?
Hon. K. Conroy: We’re not relaxing on adoption, and we are focusing on the needs of the children, which is critically important. The campaign to find children loving homes, permanent homes, was initiated several years ago. A number of the children that are now waiting for homes have unique circumstances that need to be addressed.
Some of those circumstances of those kids are sibling groups. We need to try to ensure that we can keep siblings together, which sometimes is difficult. A family adopting might not want to adopt two, three or four siblings.
The age. A number of those children waiting for adoption are over the age of five or are in their teens, and that can pose issues. A number of the children have complex medical needs, so we have to make sure that we can match those needs with the families that are adopting, and also might have emotional and developmental needs. We are really focused on finding families who can take care of children in those exceptional circumstances. I just want to give a number of examples of why a planned adoption might not have occurred in the last year.
One example is a child under five years of age who was having difficulty transitioning from a foster home to an adoptive home and needed more time to adjust to the plan, so the adoption placement date was actually postponed for over four weeks and into the next fiscal year. That meant that number didn’t get carried forward.
A plan is in place for a child to be adopted by their foster parent, and the Indigenous community requested that the cultural safety agreement be presented to the Indigenous community committee. In keeping with the spirit of reconciliation and collaboration, that placement date has also been postponed, because it’s very, very important to ensure that those traditions are respected and recognized.
Also, another situation is where a change in circumstances occurred in the adoptive parents’ home, where an adult moved into the home. This required an update to the home study, so that adoption placement was also delayed. Those numbers weren’t included in this year’s numbers, so to speak. No one’s relaxing with trying to ensure that the adoptions go ahead.
Of the money that the member referenced, $1 million is for post-adoption assistance to ensure that the families get assistance they need once the adoption is approved. For the rest of the money, the Pace program receives $200,000 in funding to support healthy transitions and deliver services to families who adopt or are the permanent guardians of children and youth in care in the Lower Mainland. The funding supported 2.5 positions to work with families.
The Adoptive Families Association of B.C. received $250,000 in funding to secure 500 seats in the on-line adoption education program and in the Child in the Home on-line program.
A Child’s Song Adoption Support Services received $28,000 to provide seminars to 250 caregivers, adoptive parents and guardians right across the province on parenting children who have experienced trauma.
Then there are also eight positions to assist service delivery staff to complete documentation tasks associated with the adoption and permanency for children in care. So very much an ongoing issue and one that staff are working very hard on.
L. Throness: Well, I appreciate the minister recounting anecdotes, but it’s as if she wants to make an excuse for why adoptions are down. I would point out to her that the previous government had all of those types of problems, too, and was still able to have much larger numbers than the minister has.
I would appeal to the minister. I’ve not been criticizing the minister because I want to criticize. I’ve been criticizing the minister because adoption is at the centre of what she does. It finds forever homes for children in government care. It’s best for the child. It’s best for the government. It’s best for the minister. It’s best for the taxpayer.
I want the government to be successful here. I want the government to mount an extraordinary effort to find more homes for children and increase adoption in the coming year, and I’ll be watching closely on that.
I want to move on to foster care in my last few minutes. The March 2017 performance management report says that in the one year, 2016-17, we lost 569 foster parents under age 64. That is catastrophic. It is a drop of 22 percent in one year. How many foster parents under age 64 were active at the end of March this year?
Hon. K. Conroy: I just want to clarify something for the member. At the centre of what we do as a ministry and what I do as a minister is to ensure that families stay together, that families get the support they need to stay together, that children get the support they need to stay with their families, to ensure that we’re there for them and to ensure that the extended families are brought into the picture. That is exactly what this ministry should be doing and should be working hard to make sure of every day.
There might not be as many adoptions because we were able to keep families together in the long run. I think that’s something that needs to be clear. I mean, that is definitely what the Aboriginal delegated agency in Kamloops told me — that those 50 children that had been on the list are no longer on that list because they are working to ensure those children stay with their families. That’s at Lii Michif Otipemisiwak, if the member would like to talk more with those folks in Kamloops. They are very dedicated to that.
In total, the province has 2,660 foster homes. Under the age of 65, it’s 2,238; over the age of 65, it’s 411. I just want to comment on how dedicated the foster parents are that I have met and how impressed I am with the work they do, sometimes in a very difficult situation. The foster parents in this province are just so committed to the work that they do, and I just want to commend them publicly for that on the record.
L. Throness: I want to give a suggestion to the minister. The cost differential between contracted care and foster care is huge, as she knows. Contracted care is five times more expensive. I calculated, given my limited ability, that based on 7,000 children in care, last year we spent about $140 million on fostering and nearly as much, $125 million, on contract care, although it represents only 15 percent of placement days. In other words, we could greatly increase the support we pay to foster parents, recruit more of them and have money left over for some contracted care.
This would be, of course, better for children, and it wouldn’t cost the taxpayer an extra dime. So would the government increase support for foster parents, mount a big recruitment effort and set as a goal to recruit enough foster homes so that we need almost no contracted care?
Hon. K. Conroy: I agree with the member. Contracted services cost more and probably are not the best circumstances to utilize often. We are transitioning out of a system that has been in place for many years. That takes time. I also agree that foster care could provide better care. The bottom line, though, is making sure we can keep kids with families and providing the support to those families so that we can ensure that that happens.
Right now we are, I acknowledge…. I mean, foster parents have contacted me, since the first time I met with them, a number of times. The fact that they have not had a raise since 2009…. There has been nothing for foster families as far as that goes. Since that time, the cost of living for families has gone up in B.C. Also, it was in Grand Chief Ed John’s report. He highlighted the number of other community partners that address payment inequities between foster caregivers and kinship families who step up to care for vulnerable young relatives.
For this reason — for the rationale around foster parents, around issues with families, kinship — the government has requested that the ministry staff undertake a project to do an immediate overview of how foster families, all caregivers, are paid in this province. It’s a collaborative review of the payment model that’s done for all types of family caregivers. This project is looking into all aspects of pay around the family caregiver payment model, including the linkages with the federal Canada child benefit as well as child disability rates.
I agree that foster families provide an amazing service, and we need to look to see how we can ensure that we provide the remuneration that they require while also looking at ensuring that we support families that want to support their children and support those kinship agreements.
L. Throness: I just have one more question. I want to thank the minister and her staff, as well, for appearing and answering questions here. I only wish I had longer.
The final question is about my order paper questions. I’ve had order paper questions now on the order paper for seven months. It’s part of the process of standing orders. These are factual questions. I don’t think it’s very respectful of the standing orders, nor is it very transparent to all MLAs, who would have that information available to them.
Why has the minister not answered my questions on the order paper, and will she undertake to do so right away?
Hon. K. Conroy: It’s interesting the member raises this question. I just want to put on the record that there were never any written answers on the order paper that were answered by the previous administration, the government under which this member sat for 16 years. In fact, the last time a notice of question on the order paper was answered was in 1993.
Most recently our ministry did answer questions that were put on the order paper by the member in the fall. I think the member needs to refresh his understanding of questions on the order paper, because they tend to be yes and no answers.
We gave significant answers in the fall, and I think they were respectful. I think the staff did a very good job in how they responded to those. We also have compiled a couple of binders for the questions that the member does have on the order papers.
I would ask the member to refresh his understanding of questions on the order papers, because they do need to be yes and no answers. It is actually out of order for questions on order papers to be referred to in estimates. It’s a very different process. But we do have a couple of binders here of answers to your questions that we will give to you at the end of the session today.
I would remind the member that this is the first time ever, since his government — this member was a member of the former government — had questions on the order papers. I well remember, because I know our members put questions on order papers numerous times, and they were never answered. Now twice, this member has had his questions answered. I would like to ensure that he connects with the Clerk’s office to ensure that he has a clear understanding of what questions on the order paper actually entail.
I, too, would like to thank the staff for their support of estimates and thank the member for his questions.
Vote 18: ministry operations, $1,792,612,000 — approved.
Hon. K. Conroy: I move that the committee rise and report completion of the resolution and ask leave to sit again.
Motion approved.
The committee rose at 11:50 a.m.
Copyright © 2018: British Columbia Hansard Services, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada